Background on Research Evaluation in Chinese Higher Education
China's higher education sector has long relied on publication metrics for evaluating researchers, institutions, and funding allocations. This system, centered on the Science Citation Index and journal impact factors, drove significant growth in output but also created pressures around costs and quality. Recent reforms seek to address imbalances by shifting focus toward research substance rather than venue or volume.
Universities such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, and those under the Chinese Academy of Sciences play central roles in this landscape. The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science and Technology have guided changes to promote balanced assessment across disciplines.
Historical Context of Reforms Since 2020
Beginning in February 2020, national policies introduced measures to reduce overreliance on quantitative indicators. These initiatives encouraged evaluation based on representative works, with limits on the number of papers considered and requirements for a portion to appear in high-quality domestic journals. The goal was to restore emphasis on innovation, integrity, and societal impact while curbing practices that prioritized metrics alone.
These early steps laid groundwork for addressing financial aspects of publishing, particularly as open access models expanded.
The 2026 APC Policy from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
In early 2026, the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced it would cease reimbursing article processing charges exceeding $5,000 for approximately 30 international open access journals using academy or central government funds. Journals affected include Nature Communications, Cell Reports, and Science Advances. The policy took effect in March 2026 and extends restrictions to publications in journals linked to academic misconduct.
This measure directly targets rising costs while aligning with broader evaluation reforms that prioritize research quality over publication venue.
Financial Pressures Driving the Changes
Chinese researchers have faced escalating expenses in open access publishing. A 2024 report from the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences indicated average article processing charges surpassed $3,000 per article, with total spending by Chinese authors reaching $909 million that year. High-profile journals often charge between $5,000 and $7,350, creating significant burdens on institutional budgets and individual researchers.
Universities and research institutes have shouldered much of this through grants and central allocations, prompting calls for better oversight and cost controls.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Impacts on Universities and Researchers
Institutions across China, including those affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, must now navigate new funding rules. Researchers may need to seek alternative outlets or self-fund in restricted journals, potentially shifting submission patterns toward domestic or lower-cost international options. Early career academics and those in applied fields stand to benefit from reduced pressure to publish in expensive venues.
University administrators report ongoing adjustments in grant management and evaluation criteria to reflect these realities.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Responses
Researchers welcome the potential relief from cost pressures but express concerns about access to high-visibility international platforms. University leaders emphasize the need for supportive domestic journals and peer-review processes that value substance. International publishers have noted the policy's implications for submission volumes from one of the world's largest research communities.
Discussions in academic circles highlight opportunities for greater focus on collaborative and applied work.
Implications for Global Academic Publishing
China's approach influences worldwide trends in open access economics and evaluation practices. As the leading producer of scientific articles, shifts in Chinese policy affect journal strategies and international collaborations. Other nations and funders continue to explore similar cost-containment and quality-focused measures.
These developments underscore evolving tensions between accessibility, affordability, and prestige in scholarly communication.
Future Outlook and Institutional Adaptations
Looking ahead, Chinese higher education institutions are expected to strengthen support for domestic journals and develop robust qualitative assessment frameworks. Continued dialogue among the Ministry of Education, funding bodies, and universities will shape implementation. Researchers may increasingly prioritize representative works that demonstrate real-world impact.
Long-term success depends on building evaluation infrastructures that reward excellence across diverse research outputs.
Actionable Insights for Academics and Administrators
Faculty members should review institutional guidelines on acceptable publication venues and explore funding alternatives for open access. Administrators can benchmark against peers and invest in training on responsible research assessment. Collaborative networks among Chinese universities offer pathways to share best practices in navigating these reforms.
Staying informed through official channels from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Science and Technology remains essential.
