China's research machine keeps pumping out papers at a record clip. The real shift underway is where those papers end up and who controls the platforms that judge them.
Recent policy signals point to a deliberate cooling on submissions to high-profile international journals. Concerns over data leaks and a desire to build domestic capacity are driving the change. At the same time, government-backed efforts are accelerating the creation of new Chinese journals and alternative evaluation systems.
The Excellence Action Plan scales up fast
Launched in 2019, the Science and Technology Journal Excellence Action Plan started as an upgrade program for existing titles. Phase II, running 2024 to 2028, changed the game. CAST committed 1.2 billion RMB to the effort. The focus moved from polishing leaders to building new capacity at scale.
In late 2024 the plan funded 50 new high-starting-point journals. Another 70 followed in 2025. That brings the total to 120 new titles under the current phase. Most are English-language. Many are scheduled to begin publishing this year. Clusters of journals sharing platforms and workflows are also receiving support. The goal is structural advantage, not just individual titles.
These moves treat scholarly publishing as strategic infrastructure. Funding, editorial standards, and platform control are being aligned in one direction.
Here's the catch with the new journals
Volume is one thing. Prestige and consistent quality are another. Launching titles is straightforward when backed by state resources. Sustaining rigorous peer review and attracting submissions from outside China will test the model. Early signs show ambition, yet uptake remains an open question. International authors still weigh visibility and citation patterns heavily when choosing venues.
Parallel efforts target evaluation itself. The Dongbi Index, released in 2026 by Shenzhen-based Dongbi Data, ranks journals across multiple disciplines using citation quality and network analysis rather than raw volume. It covers more than 12,000 titles and assigns tiered A-to-D categories. A separate Xinrui ranking also appeared this year. Both aim to reduce reliance on traditional impact factors controlled elsewhere.
Photo by Eric Prouzet on Unsplash
Funding flows and submission incentives are shifting
The Chinese Academy of Sciences has signaled it will stop covering article processing charges for roughly 30 expensive international open-access titles. That list includes outlets such as Nature Communications and Science Advances. The change received national media attention, underscoring the policy intent.
Discussions are underway to direct a meaningful share of nationally funded research, potentially 20 to 50 percent, into Chinese-owned journals. Combined with the APC restrictions, the message to researchers is clear: domestic alignment carries growing weight. Career and funding incentives are being recalibrated accordingly.
Broader research output continues its climb. China now produces more than one million papers annually and leads several metrics for highly cited work. Growth in public R&D spending has been steep. That scale gives domestic platforms natural gravity if the incentive structures hold.
Integrity concerns remain part of the picture
Rapid expansion brings scrutiny. Papers with Chinese affiliations account for a disproportionate share of retractions at major publishers. Paper-mill activity and compromised peer review have been documented in multiple analyses. In February 2026 the Ministry of Science and Technology announced penalties for institutions that fail to investigate serious misconduct cases. A national database of violations is also in development to affect future funding and talent programs.
These steps acknowledge the problem at the highest levels. They also highlight that scale alone does not guarantee trust. International readers and collaborators will watch how enforcement plays out.
Global implications take shape
Western publishers have long relied on China as both a major submission market and a source of open-access revenue. Redirecting flows and APC spending changes that equation. New Chinese platforms and metrics create parallel systems that researchers inside the country will navigate first.
The result is not isolation. Chinese journals are actively courting international authors and editors. English-language titles and cluster platforms are designed with global reach in mind. The contest is over influence within an increasingly multipolar publishing landscape rather than outright replacement of existing players.
Optimism around open science persists where new platforms improve access and transparency. Hype around instant dominance, however, ignores the time required to build editorial reputation and consistent standards. Policy can redirect submissions. Lasting prestige still requires demonstrated rigor over years.
Researchers and publishers outside China now face practical choices about engagement. Tracking which new titles gain traction, how the Dongbi and Xinrui rankings are adopted, and whether the overseas cooling stabilizes will reveal the trajectory. The infrastructure is being built in real time. Outcomes will depend on execution, not announcements alone.
