On December 31, 2020, the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) released a controversial list of 65 international scientific journals. All were indexed by the Web of Science but were flagged for potential conflicts with academic rigor. The release of this list immediately impacted publication patterns among Chinese researchers, spurring debate within the global academic community. A year later, on December 31, 2021, CAS revised and reduced the list to 35 journals, citing constructive responses and procedural improvements from publishers. This article explores the motivations and criteria behind this list, using insights from policy documents, public debates, and quantitative analyses.
Motivation Behind the List
The creation of the list was driven by several key motivations:
- Enhancing Research Quality:
- The primary aim was to elevate the quality of Chinese academic outputs by discouraging researchers from publishing in journals perceived as having low academic rigor or inconsistent peer-review standards. By focusing on quality over quantity, CAS intended to ensure that China’s research aligns with international standards.
- Curbing Predatory Practices:
- Predatory journals, which often exploit researchers for publication fees without offering rigorous peer review, were a critical target. While the flagged journals were indexed by the Web of Science, concerns over questionable editorial practices warranted scrutiny.
- Maximizing Research Impact:
- With substantial government funding directed toward research, ensuring that publications appear in credible outlets enhances the visibility and impact of Chinese scholarship. High-quality publications contribute to global knowledge and strengthen China’s academic reputation.
- Reducing Academic Misconduct:
- Cases of academic misconduct, such as paper mills and unethical authorship practices, have raised alarms globally. The list aimed to address such issues by dissuading researchers from engaging with journals known for weak editorial oversight.
Impact on Publishing Patterns
- Shifts in Journal Selection:
- The list significantly influenced Chinese researchers’ publication patterns. Many avoided submitting to flagged journals, leading to a marked decline in submissions from China. A survey conducted in 2022 revealed a 40% reduction in Chinese-authored papers in journals included on the list, signaling the list’s effectiveness in shaping researcher behavior.
- Preference for High-Impact Journals:
- Researchers increasingly sought to publish in high-impact, reputable journals, aligning their work with international benchmarks. While this shift promotes quality, it has also intensified competition, making it more challenging for early-career researchers to secure publications.
- Influence on Institutional Policies:
- Universities and research institutions revised their publication guidelines, often discouraging or outright prohibiting submissions to listed journals. This alignment with the CAS initiative ensured compliance but also raised concerns about narrowing publication avenues.
Positive and Negative Impacts
Positive Impacts:
- Improved Research Standards:
- By steering researchers away from journals with questionable practices, the initiative has raised awareness about ethical publishing and encouraged higher-quality outputs.
- Global Academic Integration:
- The focus on reputable journals has strengthened China’s integration into the global academic community, fostering collaborations and enhancing the credibility of Chinese research.
Negative Impacts:
- Potential Stigmatization of Journals:
- Journals included in the list, even those undergoing improvements, face reputational damage. This stigmatization may limit opportunities for researchers specializing in niche fields where such journals play a pivotal role.
- Pressure on Researchers:
- The heightened emphasis on publishing in high-impact journals increases pressure on researchers, particularly early-career academics, potentially stifling innovation and creativity.
- Overreliance on Quantitative Metrics:
- The list’s reliance on metrics like acceptance rates and self-citation ratios may overlook qualitative aspects of journal quality, leading to unintended biases in evaluation.
Will This Effort Create a Positive Impact?
Efforts like China’s List of Questionable Journals have the potential to create a lasting positive impact by improving academic standards, curbing unethical practices, and promoting transparency. However, their success depends on how they are implemented and perceived:
- Collaborative Development: Engaging stakeholders, including international experts and journal editors, in the development process could ensure fairness and inclusivity.
- Support for Researchers: Providing resources and training on ethical publishing would empower researchers to make informed decisions without over-relying on such lists.
- Transparent Criteria: Clearly articulating the selection criteria for the list would build trust and mitigate concerns about bias.
While the list has succeeded in influencing publication patterns and prompting reforms, its long-term effectiveness will hinge on its adaptability and the broader support mechanisms for researchers. Balancing quality control with academic freedom is crucial for ensuring that such initiatives foster positive change without unintended negative consequences.
Conclusion
China’s List of Questionable Journals reflects a commitment to academic excellence and ethical publishing. While it has achieved significant milestones in shaping researcher behavior and improving journal standards, its impact must be continually evaluated to ensure it remains a constructive force in global academia. With careful refinement and collaboration, this initiative can serve as a model for fostering integrity and quality in scholarly publishing worldwide.