“Demand shapes the market and lies at the core of many challenges we face today. This demand often stems from urgent needs and is intricately linked to our current academic evaluation systems,” explained Yang Siluo, Executive Deputy Director and Professor at the China Science Evaluation Research Center at Wuhan University, while discussing a recent case of fraudulent journals uncovered by police in Jingmen, Hubei Province.

Yang pointed out that in environments with restricted quotas for professional title assessments, review committees tend to rely heavily on publications as a primary criterion, leading to an emphasis on “paper-only” standards. For instance, when completing certain engineering projects, submitting papers is often required to “publicize research findings for broader dissemination and application.”

In recent years, authorities have started to address these chaotic trends. In 2020, the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the State Council released the “Overall Plan for Deepening Education Evaluation Reform in the New Era.” Yang stressed the need for ongoing refinement and enhancement in both theoretical research and practical application, highlighting that this process cannot deliver immediate results.

Currently, the academic journal supply fails to match the publication demand. The “China Academic Journal Evaluation Research Report (Seventh Edition)” published earlier this year reveals only 336 professional Chinese academic journals in the education sector, divided into four categories: basic education, vocational education, higher education, and comprehensive education, amounting to about 160,000 annual articles. This number pales in comparison to the millions of full-time teachers and students.

Hu Xiaoyang, a researcher at the China Science Evaluation Research Center and Deputy Editor at the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences at Hubei University, who has nearly two decades of experience in the journal industry, believes that not every professional needs to validate their achievements and academic qualifications through published papers.

In an interview with reporters from China Youth Daily, he emphasized that the primary role of primary and secondary school teachers in basic education is to provide quality instruction, and the overall development of their students serves as the best indicator of their effectiveness. He argued that there is minimal correlation between published papers and the quality of teaching research. In engineering, professionals contribute by transforming blueprints into tangible outcomes and tackling technical challenges on-site. Their influence is evident through lesson plans, research summaries, implementation reports, technological improvements, industry standards, and policy recommendations, all of which showcase their innovative capacity.

However, Hu noted that these practical outputs, such as lesson plans and reports, often face rejection when submitted to journals. “They are likely to be rejected in the first round.”

Yang has engaged in numerous discussions with journal editors and identified a concerning trend: many journals that once accepted practical articles like reports and case studies are now scaling back their publication of such pieces. “Some editors have indicated that mainstream journal evaluation systems and title assessments strongly favor theoretical articles. As a result, they feel compelled to conform to these standards and focus more on soliciting and publishing theoretical research,” he noted.

Consequently, professionals in fields like engineering and healthcare, who often struggle with theoretical writing, have begun seeking out intermediaries to ghostwrite and submit papers on their behalf. This has paved the way for unscrupulous individuals to exploit the situation, charging exorbitant publication fees or pushing victims toward fake journals.

Recently, Jingmen police uncovered a case involving thousands of papers published in fraudulent journals, with a well-known journal website indexing these articles. Yang expressed concern that such illicit activities severely compromise academic integrity, disrupt the scientific research ecosystem, undermine the fairness of academic evaluations, and potentially harm the overall framework for scientific research and innovation.

Yang calls for a concerted effort among all relevant authorities and societal sectors to address these challenges. On one hand, it’s crucial to expedite the improvement of the academic evaluation system and its associated regulations, evaluating professionals based on innovation, quality, effectiveness, and contribution. He advocates for fostering academic fairness and endorsing differentiated evaluations and peer comparisons. This would alleviate the current pressure on paper requirements in professional title assessments and project completions, urging a focus on “finding value through representative works.”

On the other hand, addressing the publication needs of frontline workers and promoting the value of practical articles within the industry is essential. Recently, the China Science Evaluation Research Center at Wuhan University, in partnership with the Digital Publishing Intelligent Service Engineering Research Center at Wuhan University of Technology, released the “China Applied Journal Evaluation Research Report (2023 Edition),” which assessed 1,365 applied journals across 17 major industry categories and two comprehensive categories. This report identified 61 authoritative applied journals, 276 core applied journals, 497 extended core applied journals, and 531 entry-level applied journals, marking the first focused evaluation of applied journals in the country.

Yang emphasized that applied journals concentrate on practical applications, primarily addressing issues linked to technical development, engineering applications, professional advancement, and industry or social practices, standing in stark contrast to theoretical journals. These journals primarily serve vocational technical professionals and are often managed by higher vocational institutions and relevant industry associations. He pointed out that the current domestic journal evaluation system predominantly relies on traditional citation metrics that favor theoretical academic journals, leading to the underappreciation of applied journals.

Yang hopes that through this evaluation, specific goals, development directions, and service values can be established for each applied journal, with an emphasis on resolving current issues regarding the evaluation, performance assessment, and title accreditation of vocational technical professionals.