On March 20, 2025, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) unveiled its new standards for classifying academic journals, which triggered a sharp backlash from the academic community. The announcement came months later than expected and was met with widespread criticism concerning fairness and transparency.
The delay and controversy surrounding the release of the 2025 CAS division list quickly garnered attention on social media, particularly on Weibo, where users expressed their outraged opinions, describing the standards as lacking authority and credibility. A particularly popular comment came from a Sichuan University engineering PhD student, who criticized the standards, saying, "Various public accounts are still propagating what they call 'authoritative releases.' Does this garbage truly deserve to be called 'authoritative'?"
This PhD student outlined several issues with the CAS classification. Firstly, he claimed the calculation standards were vague, mentioning the mix of journal impact indicators, three-year average impact factors, and manual adjustments that create confusion. He lamented, "No matter how scientific or reasonable they claim to be, they don’t reveal their standards, and you must comply without reason."">
Moreover, the release timing added fuel to the fire. Originally set to be published in December, it was rescheduled to after the Chinese New Year and ultimately delayed further to March 20, 2025. The student pointedly questioned, "Did you not weigh the conflicts of interest properly? Did you not receive the appropriate bribe? Did you simply amends the publication date from '2' to '3' without notice? Not even a village committee would handle a notification this casually?"
The timing of the announcement coincided with key deadlines for university faculty applying for research funding and students preparing for their thesis submissions, and many feared these classifications could affect their graduation. The student criticized how journals previously classified in Zone 1 could suddenly be demoted to Zones 2 or 3.
Additionally, the standards reportedly favored newly established domestic journals over long-respected journals and further undermined established academic norms. Another netizen lamented, "The old, reputable journals are being shoved down to Zones 2 and 3, while even a domestic journal that's not even two years old is boosted into Zone 1 TOP. Various researchers have worked hard over many years to publish their results in certified journals, only to see their efforts deprecated without explanation. Such a reversal resembles bureaucratic nonsense, turning scientific advancement into a checklist of who plays the system best rather than a pursuit of knowledge."
The response from the public on Weibo further highlighted the perceived absurdity of the classification system. Comments included accusations of corruption and claims that the division was merely a method for ideological control. One user remarked, "This kind of classification is a farce, and the CAS should be ashamed. Every year, people criticize the divisions, but this year’s release has crossed the line, sparking a public outcry that won’t fade away anytime soon."
In light of the controversy, the CAS quickly removed the division list from circulation. Critics noted that the entire situation reflects a flawed approach to academic integrity, with the public’s perception being that the classification scheme is nothing short of a money-making endeavor reminiscent of university rankings.
In academia, publication metrics play a crucial role in assessing the quality of research. The conflict arises when an institution decides to form its classifications divergent from internationally recognized standards. For instance, the widely respected Journal Citation Reports (JCR) division standards from Clarivate Analytics define journals into four distinct tiers based on influence factors, allowing for a level of accountability among journals globally. The CAS has developed its set of standards that divides journals into 13 major categories, each with four zones based on the impact rankings: top journals in Zone 1 (5%), then Zones 2 (6 to 20%), 3 (21-50%), and finally those in Zone 4 (50% and below).
This conflict raises serious questions about the credibility of China's domestic academic system and its adherence to global standards. With the CAS division scheme routinely scrutinized and often criticized for perceived unfairness, many university faculty and researchers are left navigating an ambiguous landscape of journal classifications with potentially real consequences for funding and academic recognition.
The fallout from this latest incident extends beyond mere academic frustration; it highlights deep-seated concerns about corruption and favoritism that underpin academic publishing standards in China. As one commentator on Weibo accurately summarized, "This is not about science; it’s about interests and exchanges. The CAS bears significant responsibility for muddying the waters of research integrity." As more voices join the conversation surrounding these issues, the CAS will need to confront these allegations combatively if it hopes to regain trust in the academic field. Comprehensive reforms and more transparent processes may be required to restore even a shred of credibility from this acrimonious episode.
