China discontinues prominent journal ranking list
Summary
On 27 March, the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) announced it will no longer update or publish its journal ranking list, ending a 22-year system that heavily influenced research evaluation across China. The list had been widely used in hiring, promotion and funding decisions; its removal signals potential shifts in how research is assessed and raises questions about replacement measures and short-term uncertainty for researchers and institutions.
Key Points
- CAS stopped updating its journal ranking list on 27 March after 22 years of publication.
- The ranking shaped evaluation, affecting hiring, promotions, funding and institutional assessments.
- Experts see the move as an opportunity to reform research-assessment practices in China.
- There is uncertainty about what will replace the ranking and how assessments will be standardised.
- The change could influence researchers’ publication strategies and international collaboration.
Why should I read this?
Quick heads-up: if you work with Chinese universities or publish in journals that affect Chinese hiring and funding, this matters. The ranking’s retirement could change what counts for promotions and grants — best to know what’s shifting before your next submission or collaboration.
Content summary
The note is short but significant: the CAS National Science Library’s decision removes a long-standing, widely used tool for judging journal quality in China. That system shaped incentives for researchers and organisational assessment for more than two decades. Its end is likely to prompt debate and transition toward alternative evaluation methods.
Context and relevance
This development ties into broader, global moves away from simplistic, journal-based metrics towards more responsible research assessment. For China — a major research producer — the change could alter incentives, affect where researchers aim to publish and require institutions and funders to define new criteria for measuring research impact.
Author’s take
Punchy: This is a big policy shift wrapped in a brief announcement. If you manage hiring, promotions or research strategy, read the detail. If not, at least skim the key points so you’re not caught out later.