Journal Evaluation Systems: Evolution and Practices in China’s Social Sciences

Journal evaluation systems play an important role in academic evaluation. With many papers published in high-ranking journals, one can expect greater success in grant applications, higher internal resource allocations, faster promotions, and access to many other trappings of academic life. The expansion of China’s research and development systems and its rise as a significant contributor to global innovation have seen journal evaluation become a significant and much-scrutinized issue. Thus, in this chapter, we offer a comprehensive analysis of the current state-of-the-art in journal evaluation systems and practices. The review begins with a history of social science journal evaluation in China. We then systematically compare the two most influential journal lists of the present day: the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and the “Attraction, Management and Influence” Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI). A small selection of influential lists produced by universities, research institutions, and professional associations are also discussed. The material presented provides deep insights into how social sciences research in China is assessed. These findings may also reveal some information about the journal evaluation activities of other countries. Overall, our aim is to make a valuable contribution to the theory and practice of journal evaluation so as to promote the sustainable and healthy development of journal management and evaluation systems both in China and abroad.

A new index to evaluate the academic impact of journals: RAQ index

PurposeTo improve the deficiencies of the existing journal influencing evaluation indexes, which have single influencing factors and are greatly affected by the number of papers published, this paper proposes a new evaluation of the journal influence method based on the RA index.Design/methodology/approachIn the metrics create, the paper introduces the RA index for evaluating the impact of authors and analyzing its feasibility in journal evaluation. Then the RA index is divided by the number of journal's published papers to obtain the RAQ index to evaluate journal impact. In the metrics analysis, the authors analyze the statistical characteristics of the RAQ index using statistical analysis, and t-test, Roc curve and PLS were used to analyze the relationship between the RAQ index and other indicators.FindingsEmpirical results show that the RAQ index can effectively identify high-quality journals and reduce the number of published papers on journal evaluation. The empirical results show that the RAQ index has higher stability and discrimination than the h-index and g-index. Compared with other indexes, the RAQ index has better evaluation effects and statistical characteristics.Originality/valueThe current study proposes journals' RAQ index, which integrates the influence of high-, low- and zero-cited papers. It solves the problem of the virtual high of the h-type index. The findings will contribute to the evaluation of journal influence by offering a new research idea that facilitates the fairness and rationality of journal evaluation.

A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China

Journal evaluation systems reflect how new insights are critically reviewed and published, and the prestige and impact of a discipline’s journals is a key metric in many research assessment, performance evaluation, and funding systems. With the expansion of China’s research and innovation systems and its rise as a major contributor to global innovation, journal evaluation has become an especially important issue. In this paper, we first describe the history and background of journal evaluation in China and then systematically introduce and compare the most currently influential journal lists and indexing services. These are: the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), the Journal Partition Table (JPT), the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI), the Chinese S&T Journal Citation Report (CJCR), “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC), the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other influential lists produced by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are also briefly introduced. Through the lens of these systems, we provide comprehensive coverage of the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China and the methods and practices of journal evaluation in China with some comparisons to how other countries assess and rank journals.

A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China

Journal evaluation systems are important in science because they focus on the quality of how new results are critically reviewed and published. They are also important because the prestige and scientific impact of journals is given attention in research assessment and in career and funding systems. Journal evaluation has become increasingly important in China with the expansion of the country’s research and innovation system and its rise as a major contributor to global science. In this paper, we first describe the history and background for journal evaluation in China. Then, we systematically introduce and compare the most influential journal lists and indexing services in China. These are: the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD); the journal partition table (JPT); the AMI Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI); the Chinese STM Citation Report (CJCR); the “A Guide to the Core Journals of China” (GCJC); the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI); and the World Academic Journal Clout Index (WAJCI). Some other lists published by government agencies, professional associations, and universities are briefly introduced as well. Thereby, the tradition and landscape of the journal evaluation system in China is comprehensively covered. Methods and practices are closely described and sometimes compared to how other countries assess and rank journals.