“China’s place in the global system of science has become increasingly prominent. In 2016, China published the highest number of scientific articles and in 2022 it was home to the most cited papers.1 However, whether the world’s population can access and benefit from these scientific outputs largely depends on them being openly available. Academic and governmental institutions, as well as the public, connect the open science (OS) movement with two main practices, the publishing of open access (OA) research articles and sharing open data. Since the early 1990s, OS has been an umbrella term used to refer to all the different technology-enabled initiatives to strengthen openness, one core ethos of science.”
Abstract: [Purposes] This paper aims to analyze the characteristics of DOAJ-indexed Chinese open access (OA) journals and their charging policies to provide references for the establishment of an article processing charge (APC) system for OA journals in China. [Methods] A total of 253 Chinese and English journals in China included in DOAJ were used as the research objects, and the time of inclusion, language distribution, publisher distribution, discipline distribution, and charging policies of each journal were collected from the journals’ official websites and DOAJ database by web research method. Then, the characteristics of the journals and their charging policies were analyzed. [Findings] The number of Chinese OA journals included in DOAJ is small, and the distribution of OA journals by discipline is uneven. The degree of intensification of OA journal publishing is not high. Chinese OA journals and Chinese and English OA journals still follow the traditional mode of charging page fees and the fees are generally not high. English OA journals have initially established APC charging rules. Different disciplines show differences in APC. [Conclusions] Strengthening policy guidance, enhancing information construction, improving journal service quality, encouraging Chinese researchers to debut their results in Chinese OA journals, and developing a charging system framework suitable for the development of OA journals in China will promote OA publishing development in China.
Abstract: This study analyzes the publication requirements of PhD programs in China. It is based on a representative sample of PhD programs from 164 Chinese universities from all fields of science. Our results show that Chinese PhD student significant pressures to publish in order to obtain their degree, with papers indexed in the Science Citation Index often a mandatory requirement for students to obtain their degree. Moreover, it is found that first authorship is also mandatory: only as first authors count towards the degree, which may affect PhD students’ collaborative behavior. These findings highlight the role of publications indexed in the Science Citation Index for China’s PhD programs and contributes to our understanding of the landscape of research evaluation in China’s higher education system.
“Tony Alves attended the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers 2023 Annual Conference in Manchester, UK. Among the many interesting topics covered, Alves chose to focus this three-part blog series on three sessions that he felt reflected some of the big concerns facing scholarly publishers today, fairer metrics, technological disruption, and Chinese research priorities. In this second blog post, Alves presents two differing opinions on China’s interest in open science and open access.”
Abstract: For various reasons, journals may convert from subscription based (SB) to open-access (OA), commonly referred to as flipping. In the 2022, the Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (AOGS), has flipped to OA. We aim to perform a bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns of the publications in this journal during the flipping period. A total of 898 research articles were included. In the OA period, there were more publications by authors from China (7.2% vs. 3.3%), p=.001. Flipping to OA in a leading obstetrics and gynecology journal is associated with a change in authorship.
Abstract: Reforming the research evaluation system is essentially a struggle between the academic aristocracy, which professes expert approaches to evaluation, and the scientific bureaucracy, which seeks to ensure the dictate of numerical indicators. A representative example is the evolution of this confrontation in China, where a long-term commitment to international scientometric databases made it possible to achieve world leadership in terms of the number of publications. However, these achievements were accompanied by negative effects caused by deterioration in the personnel policy of universities, the reduction of academic freedoms, changes in the publication behavior of researchers, and violations of scientific ethics. This led to a reform of the national evaluation system, namely, the strengthening of the role of expertise, the priority dissemination of scientific information at the national level, and the restriction of open access publications. This review considers the history of the formation of and changes in the research evaluation system in China, its positive and negative effects, as well as new scientific practices, their likely consequences, and the possibility to apply them in other countries.
Abstract: Lists of endorsed and discouraged scholarly publications recently emerged as an important transition in Chinese journal evaluation. Among the targeted users of these lists are researchers, who are to avoid publishing in discouraged journals and focus efforts on endorsed journals. However, it is unclear how these lists affect researchers’ valuations when choosing publication outlets. This explorative study investigates the reception of such journal lists in Chinese scientists’ research practices. Our findings suggest that three logics interact in respondents’ journal valuations: institutional evaluation regimes, differing epistemic cultures, and the influence of the commercial publishing industry. The reactive effects of both endorsed and discouraged journal lists appear to differ with the ranking status of universities, the seniority of scholars, and research fields. Apart from the new institutional evaluation regimes in this interplay, there appear to be more predominant factors than journal lists that inform publishing choices: quantitative indicators, publishers’ branding, epistemic cultures, and editorial procedures and publishing models.
“arXiv users may be experiencing email disruption due to a DDOS attack. Over the past few days, a small number of users issued over a million email change requests.
These requests originated from over 200 IP addresses – almost all owned by an ISP for a particular province in China. The confirmation emails for this volume of requests overwhelmed our email service. As a result, many arXiv users may not have received their daily emails. And other users may not have received their confirmation emails for registering accounts, or legitimate email change requests.
We are taking measures to mitigate this attack, including temporarily blocking certain IP ranges. Unfortunately, this may mean some legitimate users will be unable to access arXiv until this issue is resolved. We will shortly be reaching out to the abuse desk of the affected ISP for assistance….”
Abstract: The evolving landscape of open access (OA) journal publishing holds significant importance for policymakers and stakeholders who seek to make informed decisions and develop strategies that foster sustainable growth and advancements in open access initiatives within China. This study addressed the shortcomings of the current journal evaluation system and recognized the necessity of researching the elasticity of annual publication capacity (PUB) in relation to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). By constructing an economic model of elasticity, a comparative analysis of the characteristics and dynamics of international OA journals from China and overseas was conducted. The analysis categorized OA journals based on their respective elasticity values and provided specific recommendations tailored to each category. These recommendations offer valuable insights into the development and growth potential of both OA journals from China and overseas. Moreover, the findings underscore the importance of strategic decision-making to strike a balance between quantity and quality in OA journal management. By comprehending the dynamic nature of elasticity, China can enhance its OA journal landscape, effectively meet the academic demand from domestic researchers, minimize the outflow of OA publications to overseas markets, and fortify its position within the global scholarly community.
“The focus will be on the latest in open science, open research, open data, OSTP and Europe’s cOAlition S, and look ahead to future initiatives and prospects of open access (OA) across China.
Who should attend?
This training, delivered by three scholarly experts, is aimed at scholarly publishers who are based in China. It will also be relevant to those who do business with Chinese publishers….”
“The Company of Biologists is delighted to announce a new Read & Publish Open Access agreement with the Joint University Librarians Advisory Committee (JULAC) Consortium for 2023.
Corresponding authors at participating JULAC institutions in Hong Kong can publish an uncapped number of research articles immediately Open Access (OA) in our hybrid journals (Development, Journal of Cell Science and Journal of Experimental Biology) plus our fully Open Access journals (Disease Models & Mechanisms and Biology Open) without paying an article processing charge (APC). Researchers at participating institutions also benefit from unlimited access to our hybrid journals, including their full archives dating back to 1853….”
Abstract: The pandemic has underlined the significance of open science and spurred further growth of preprinting. Nevertheless, preprinting has been adopted at varying rates across different countries/regions. To investigate researchers’ experience with and attitudes toward preprinting, we conducted a survey of authors of research papers published in 2021 or 2022. We find that respondents in the US and Europe had a higher level of familiarity with and adoption of preprinting than those in China and the rest of the world. Respondents in China were most worried about the lack of recognition for preprinting and the risk of getting scooped. US respondents were very concerned about premature media coverage of preprints, the reliability and credibility of preprints, and public sharing of information before peer review. Respondents identified integration of preprinting in journal submission processes as the most important way to promote preprinting.
Abstract: Open data sharing is critical for scientific progress. Yet, many authors refrain from sharing scientific data, even when they have promised to do so. Through a preregistered, randomized audit experiment (N?=?1,634), we tested possible ethnic, gender and status-related bias in scientists’ data-sharing willingness. 814 (54%) authors of papers where data were indicated to be ‘available upon request’ responded to our data requests, and 226 (14%) either shared or indicated willingness to share all or some data. While our preregistered hypotheses regarding bias in data-sharing willingness were not confirmed, we observed systematically lower response rates for data requests made by putatively Chinese treatments compared to putatively Anglo-Saxon treatments. Further analysis indicated a theoretically plausible heterogeneity in the causal effect of ethnicity on data-sharing. In interaction analyses, we found indications of lower responsiveness and data-sharing willingness towards male but not female data requestors with Chinese names. These disparities, which likely arise from stereotypic beliefs about male Chinese requestors’ trustworthiness and deservingness, impede scientific progress by preventing the free circulation of knowledge.
“The People’s Republic of China is well known for its efforts to restrict the free flow of information online. With this in mind, this guide provides an overview of some of the challenges facing open source researchers investigating China- focusing primarily on those outside China. For those who are just getting started in open source research on China, it is designed to give an idea of the difficulties you may face. Since 2017 evolving censorship tactics and increased regulations that reduce anonymity online have made open source research on China increasingly difficult. Methodologies that researchers have used successfully in the past are often rendered useless by new restrictions if Chinese authorities become aware of them. Access to Chinese websites and social media apps, as well as methods for investigating them, are therefore currently shrinking.
The current range of difficulties may sound bleak – and to a certain extent it is – but that doesn’t mean that people aren’t finding creative ways to work around them, or that there aren’t clear ways that developers and other researchers can work to improve things. To better understand the current situation, Bellingcat interviewed a dozen China researchers who specialise in tech or human rights, including in Xinjiang and Tibet, about the challenges they’re facing doing open source research on China….”
“CNKI, a portal for Chinese academic papers, will restrict foreign access to some databases starting April 1, for security concerns
It is unclear when access might be resumed, leading some scholars to fear the suspension might become permanent….
China’s top internet portal for academic papers will suspend foreign access to some databases starting next week, sparking concerns among scholars that they will lose not only an important resource for understanding China but also a useful guardrail to reduce misunderstanding between China and the West.
This week, research institutions around the world – including the University of California, San Diego, Kyoto University and the Berlin State Library – notified affiliates that they would indefinitely lose access to up to four databases provided by the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) platform starting on April 1….
For academics studying China, CNKI is an invaluable resource, particularly with the current uncertainty surrounding visits to China for field research….
Over 95 per cent of Chinese academic papers that are formally published are available on CNKI, according to the State Administration for Market Regulation, China’s antitrust watchdog, when it conducted a separate review of the platform’s practices….”