Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods

ABSTRACT

The academic community requires not only responsible research but also responsible academic journals. An exploratory study of Chinese-language academic journals that used mixed methods found Chinese-language academic journals on the humanities and social sciences exhibiting a widespread status bias. Most of them summarily rejected submissions from junior researchers and students without paying due attention to the quality of the research itself. The main reasons for this problem are editorial department resources, the scientific research evaluation system, the editorial department culture, and the wider academic environment. This study recommends that Chinese-language academic journals join the Committee on Publication Ethics, other publishing ethics organizations, and the “Responsible Journals” program as soon as possible.

KEYWORDS:

• Scholarly publishing
• status bias
• Chinese-language academic journals
• publishing ethics
• editorial culture

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to all interviewees who participated in the study. Notably, we are grateful to Editor-in-Chief Lisa M. Rasmussen and associate editor Kirstin R.W. Matthews for their perfect editorial support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethical considerations

We obtained informed consent from all participants and ensured voluntary participation. The survey responses were anonymous, and we did not collect any identifiable information of the participants.

Availability of data

Data cannot be shared publicly due to participants’ privacy.

Notes

1. N is the finite population, n is the sample size, the significance α level is set to 0.05, k is the quantile of the normal distribution, and P is set to 0.5.

2. The eshukan website (http://eshukan.com/) compiles information on all Chinese academic journals (like https://www.scimagojr.com/). It includes the journal’s submission URL, aim and scope, and allows researchers to share their experiences of submitting to the respective journals.

3. In 2015, Chinese government announced the “Double World-Class Project,” an initiative to develop world-class universities and first-class disciplines. Universities entering the program are considered to have outstanding academic performance and quality of education.

4. The formula for calculating the ratio is: the number of journals hold status bias in the discipline / the number of journals sampled in the discipline.

5. In China, if an academic journal publishes too many papers, it may be censored by the regulatory authorities and even blacklisted in the journal.

6. In China, research funds are divided into many levels. The most common levels include National Funds, Ministry of Education Funds, Provincial Funds, and Municipal Funds. Among them, the National Funds have the highest level. Obtaining a National Fund is one of the conditions for academic advancement. Publishing papers funded by the National Funds is also one of the criteria for evaluating Chinese-language academic journals.

Additional information

Funding

The authors of this study didn’t receive any funding neither from industry nor from academic institutions.