IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-00604-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science Citation Index (SCI) and scientific evaluation system in China

Author

Listed:
  • Junxi Qian

    (The University of Hong Kong)

  • Zhenjie Yuan

    (Guangzhou University)

  • Jie Li

    (Guangzhou University)

  • Hong Zhu

    (Guangzhou University)

Abstract

In February 2020, China’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science and Technology issued an official Opinion discouraging the use of the Science Citation Index (SCI) as a framework for the assessment of research performance. There is a need to assess the origin of the new policy, and how it will reshape cultures and practices of scientific knowledge production in China. We suggest that while concerns over the quality of research and conduct of scientists are at play, a deeper reason underlying the government’s adoption of a more cautious stance towards SCI is wider social controversy around what system of research assessment is best suited to social development and wellbeing in China. However, failing to continue to engage in international publication and collaboration would be self-defeating for China. We propose three recommendations for reforming scientific evaluation in China: diversity of criteria, autonomy of scientific evaluation, and quality of peer-review.

Suggested Citation

  • Junxi Qian & Zhenjie Yuan & Jie Li & Hong Zhu, 2020. "Science Citation Index (SCI) and scientific evaluation system in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00604-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00604-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00604-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-00604-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smriti Mallapaty, 2020. "China bans cash rewards for publishing papers," Nature, Nature, vol. 579(7797), pages 18-18, March.
    2. Richard Van Noorden, 2010. "Metrics: A profusion of measures," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7300), pages 864-866, June.
    3. Li Tang, 2019. "Five ways China must cultivate research integrity," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7784), pages 589-591, November.
    4. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liang, Wenyan & Gu, Jun & Nyland, Chris, 2022. "China's new research evaluation policy: Evidence from economics faculty of Elite Chinese universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weishu Liu & Meiting Huang & Haifeng Wang, 2021. "Same journal but different numbers of published records indexed in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection: causes, consequences, and solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4541-4550, May.
    2. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Tuan V. Nguyen & Ly T. Pham, 2011. "Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 107-117, October.
    4. Marie-Violaine Tatry & Dominique Fournier & Benoît Jeannequin & Françoise Dosba, 2014. "EU27 and USA leadership in fruit and vegetable research: a bibliometric study from 2000 to 2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2207-2222, March.
    5. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    6. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    7. Sebastian Vogl & Thomas Scherndl & Anton Kühberger, 2018. "#Psychology: a bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1253-1269, June.
    8. Beáta Gavurová & Martina Halásková & Samuel Koróny, 2019. "Research and Development Indicators of EU28 Countries from Viewpoint of Super-efficiency DEA Analysis," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 225-242.
    9. Gil-Clavel, Sofia & Wagenblast, Thorid & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Farmers’ Incremental and Transformational Climate Change Adaptation in Different Regions: A Natural Language Processing Comparative Literature Review," SocArXiv 3dp5e, Center for Open Science.
    10. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    11. Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Moustafa, Khaled, 2020. "Reforming Science Publishing," arabixiv.org mfhx7, Center for Open Science.
    13. Andreas Rehs, 2020. "A structural topic model approach to scientific reorientation of economics and chemistry after German reunification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1229-1251, November.
    14. Saad Ahmed Javed & Sifeng Liu, 2018. "Predicting the research output/growth of selected countries: application of Even GM (1, 1) and NDGM models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 395-413, April.
    15. Jianchoun Dou, 2021. "Variety, Fertility, and Long-term Economic Growth," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021020, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    16. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.
    17. Fecher, Benedikt & Fräßdorf, Mathis & Hebing, Marcel & Wagner, Gert G., 2017. "Replikationen, Reputation und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 68(2-3), pages 154-158.
    18. Ksenia Silchenko, 2018. "The other "meta" of meta-analysis: Qualitative and text-based approaches to "analysis of analyses" in marketing," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(4), pages 27-45.
    19. Sylvan Katz, 2012. "Science Policy, Complex Innovation Systems and Performance Measures," SPRU Working Paper Series 198, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    20. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00604-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.