Reflections on the international impact of Chinese STM journals

Zhang, Yuehong; Bao, Fangyin; Wu, Junjun; Lin, Hongze

doi:10.1002/leap.1203

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of China‐based English‐language journals that were ranked in the first quartile of the JCR rose from 10 in 2013 to 40 in 2017. This is in sharp contrast with the meagre increase from 0 to 10 during the much longer period between 2003 and 2013 (Zhang et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The data in the ‘Blue Book’ takes into account only those journals with a China Standard Serial Number (CN), meaning those officially registered and approved for publication in China. Journals with a CN tend to have greater access to financial and policy support from the government than those without one (Yang & Wang, 2020; Zhang et al, 2019). According to the InCites Journal Citation Report (JCR) in 2019, the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) included 243 journals published in mainland China, accounting for only 2.6% of the total SCIE journals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2013, the government launched the ‘Project for Enhancing International Impact of China STM Journals (PIIJ)’ and, in 2019, the ‘Excellence Action Plan for China STM Journals’, with total funding exceeding 200 million RMB (approximately 30 million USD), in order to enhance the overall strength and vitality of China's academic journals, especially those published in English. Driven by the PIIJ Plan, 100 new journals began publishing from 2013 to 2017 (Zhang et al, 2019). The number of China‐based English‐language journals that were ranked in the first quartile of the JCR rose from 10 in 2013 to 40 in 2017.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance of China's journals indexed in SCIE: An evaluation based on megajournal metrics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chinese government has issued a series of policies and measures in recent years to enhance the international impact of its academic journals. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of such support measures on the overall performance of China's Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)‐indexed journals. We aggregated China's SCIE journals together into a virtual, multi‐disciplinary ‘megajournal’, which we call Mega China. Based on Journal Citation Reports from 2015 to 2019, we compared Mega China with the two largest real megajournals, Scientific Reports and PLoS ONE, in terms of journal output and citation performance. The number of SCIE‐indexed journals in China and their impact factors have increased continuously every year. The total citations and h‐index of Mega China reached 489,036 and 247 in 2019, respectively. The immediacy index and impact factor of Mega China have gradually increased, in contrast to those of Scientific Reports and PLoS ONE, and reached 0.735 and 2.601, respectively, in 2019. Our analysis, by viewing all China's SCIE journals as one megajournal, provides evidence that their performance has improved under the Chinese government's new policies. Further improving China's academic journals will require fundamental reforms of the traditional Chinese publishing system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of China's journals indexed in SCIE: An evaluation based on megajournal metrics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a common dilemma facing English‐language (EL) academic journals from non‐democratic countries: state interference versus academic independence (Becker, 2006). Many scholars have begun to investigate Chinese academic EL journals (CELJs) in recent years, but most of them have sought to provide a general background on China's academic publishing sphere and the implementation, opportunities, and challenges of internationalization (Jei & Wahls, 2012; Xian, 2006; Xu, Wang, Zhou, & Liu, 2019; Zhang, Bao, Wu, & Lin, 2019). Few scholars have attempted to understand the implications of the internationalization of CELJs in the broader context of the social, political, and economic landscape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics matters: The power dynamics behind Chinese English‐language humanities and social science journals

Miao

Huang

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chinese English‐language journals in science, technology, and medicine have received scholarly attention, but little is known about their counterparts in the humanities and social sciences. A full understanding of the internationalization of Chinese English‐language humanities and social sciences journals (CELHSSJs) is not possible without an exploration of the phenomenon's social, political, and economic roots. Based on interviews with 26 stakeholders, including journal editors, heads of academic institutes, personnel from related regulatory state administrations, and international publishers, this article explores the implications of the development of CELHSSJs. Rather than treating the realms of academia and politics as distinct, opposing factors, we examine the complicated situation in China. English‐language journals carry out the political mission of the government's ‘going out’ propaganda policy. For academics and universities, they are largely a means for competing for resources domestically and a venue for power negotiations with overseas publishing groups. Based on our investigation of the dynamics and contradictions involved in the development of CELHSSJs, we argue that the power dynamics and social contexts in which Chinese English‐language journals operate shape China's knowledge production and dissemination as much as the content of these journals does.

show abstract

“…Raising the awareness and impact of a journal is often one of the drivers for any development, and ways to use social media, learn more about target audiences, and influence downloads and reuse should be high on any plan. Before listing activities, it is important to understand what impact means and how it can be measured, and the thoughtful article from Zhang, Bao, Wu, and Lin () questions how journals should measure their true impact when local systems place values entirely on the Impact Factor. The article from Hartley, Potts, Montgomery, Rennie, and Neylon () discusses the concept of a journal as a club, which suggests a framework within which a development plan could raise visibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%