Guest post by Dr Fang Xu, Deputy Director of Research Evaluation Center at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and DORA Steering Committee Member
In the global shift toward responsible research assessment, China’s decision to phase out its influential CAS Journal Classification system represents an important moment in moving beyond journal-based metrics. In this guest post, Dr Fang Xu examines the evolution and eventual discontinuation of its journal ranking framework, tracing its role in shaping research careers, funding allocation, and institutional behavior over the past two decades. Drawing on policy developments culminating in the final 2025 rankings and their official termination in 2026, the post explores how China is actively dismantling “journal centrism” to prioritize research quality, innovation, and societal impact. Situating these changes within broader international debates, Dr Xu highlights how this reform aligns with DORA principles and offers important lessons for building more inclusive, pluralistic, and value‑driven evaluation systems worldwide. You can read more about CAS’s research assessment journey in their case study.
Introduction
For decades, the global research evaluation system has relied heavily on internationally indexed journals. SCI (Science Citation Index) and SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) journal lists and journal-based metrics have dominated talent recruitment, professional title promotion, project funding, and institutional rankings around the world. For a long time, China’s academic system also followed this model, and the CAS Journal Classification Table compiled by National Science Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) became the most influential evaluation benchmark in China.
In recent years, China has been systematically reforming its research evaluation philosophy to reduce overreliance on journal rankings and impact factors, and to build a more balanced, quality-oriented evaluation system. This article explains the background of China’s journal reclassification reform, elaborates on key policy changes — including the final update of CAS journal rankings in 2025 and the official termination of rankings in 2026 — and discusses the impact of this reform on the global research evaluation community.
Development and Evolution of CAS Journal Classification
(1) Formation and Development of CAS Journal Classification (2004–2025)
For more than 20 years (2004–2025), the CAS Journal Classification Table has been the primary journal classification tool in China. Its origin and background can be traced back to the early 2000s, when the Chinese research community generally ignored differences in journal impact factor values across disciplines, leading to many misunderstandings in journal evaluation. In response, the CAS National Science Library launched the development of the journal classification table, aiming to build a scientific and reasonable journal evaluation reference system adapted to China’s research system. The first edition was officially released in 2004. This table categorizes journals into four levels (Q1–Q4) based on citation metrics and disciplinary influence, and has been updated annually after multiple rounds of optimization.
(2) 2025 CAS Journal Classification: Increased Focus on Chinese Domestic Journals
The 2025 journal list marked a clear policy shift to support domestic academic publishing, with three prominent changes:
- Reduced over-reliance on impact factor: incorporated the journal’s contribution to domestic disciplinary development and the proportion of high-quality papers by Chinese authors.
- Expanded coverage of China-hosted journals: more Chinese-language journals and English journals initiated by China were included in the list, and many of them were upgraded in tier.
- Aligned with national reform goals: this update promoted broader policies to eliminate the evaluation logic of “only papers, only journal rankings”, and encouraged focus on research quality and practical impact rather than the publication venue.
(3) 2026 Policy Shift: Official Termination of Journal Rankings
On March 27, 2026, the CAS National Science Library issued an official statement: “Starting from 2026, we will no longer update or release the Journal Classificatiton Table.” This decision is not a suspension but a permanent termination, making the 2025 edition the last official CAS journal ranking. The statement emphasized that CAS will continue to conduct research on academic evaluation methods but will no longer compile or authorize journal rankings.
Historical Role of the CAS Journal Classification
During its more than 20 years of operation, the CAS Journal Classification Table played an irreplaceable positive role in the development of China’s science and technology and the improvement of researchers’ capabilities. In terms of scientific and technological development, it effectively filled the gaps in China’s imperfect research evaluation system and the lack of unified journal evaluation standards at that time, guided research resources to priority fields, supported the rapid growth of China’s research outputs and the gradual improvement of academic influence. In terms of researcher capacity improvement, it guided researchers to focus on high-quality research and connect with international academic frontiers, helping to cultivate a group of research talents with international vision. In addition, its free inquiry service and wide application coverage allowed researchers to conveniently obtain journal evaluation information, rationally plan submission directions, and effectively improve the efficiency and pertinence of research work.
The decision of CAS to completely discontinue the journal classification table in 2026 is not a negation of its historical value, but a strategic adjustment based on the needs of China’s new stage of research development, targeting the alienation problems arising in its operation and the deep considerations of national research evaluation reform. There are multiple deep-seated reasons behind it, one of which is to weaken “journal centrism” and shift the focus of evaluation to assessing the quality, innovation and social value of individual research outputs. This is both a summary of historical experience, a precise response to the needs of research development in the new era, and an important symbol of the maturity of China’s research evaluation system.
Impact on the Global Research Community
For global research managers, funding agencies and policy makers, China’s practice provides a highly valuable case showing how to break away from overreliance on journal-based metrics and build a more scientific research evaluation system.
First, the 2025 classification update and the 2026 termination of rankings reflect the global trend toward more responsible research evaluation, which is highly consistent with DORA’s principles: reducing the weight of journal rankings, emphasizing research quality and impact, and China’s reform provides an important reference for global research evaluation reform.
Second, the increased recognition of Chinese domestic journals — followed by the cancellation of official rankings — shows that China is actively shaping academic evaluation norms that meet its own development needs, while injecting impetus into the diversification of global academic development. With the rise of more high-quality Chinese journals, the global evaluation framework needs to be more inclusive of non-Western publication venues to achieve fairer academic evaluation.
Third, China’s model provides a valuable reference for other emerging economies: it shows how national evaluation policies can coordinate to support domestic publishing capacity, reduce reliance on external indexes, preserve academic diversity, and help countries build research evaluation systems that suit their national conditions. In fact, China’s move to discontinue the CAS Journal Classification Table in 2026 and push research evaluation back to the research outputs themselves is not an isolated action, but resonates with the global trend of research evaluation reform. Many countries and well-known international institutions have similar practices, whose core is to break overreliance on journal rankings and quantitative indicators. The reform ideas of promoting diversified and value-oriented research evaluation are consistent, and together form an important force for the global transformation of research evaluation from “quantity-oriented” to “quality-oriented”.
Conclusion
The 2025 update of CAS journal classification (with increased focus on Chinese journals) and the official termination of journal rankings in 2026 are far more than technical adjustments to a journal list. They are core components of China’s broader research evaluation reform, aiming to break the bottleneck of “only papers”, build a more balanced, quality-centered evaluation system, and promote the high-quality development of China’s research enterprise.
For the international community, these developments mark the diversification of global research evaluation models — not a rejection of international academic standards, but a constructive step toward building a more inclusive, fair and multi-centered global academic landscape. Understanding this shift helps global stakeholders engage more effectively in China’s evolving research ecosystem. It also reflects China’s active contribution to the construction of the global academic ecosystem as a responsible major country, providing Chinese experience for global discussions on responsible research evaluation.