China has recently revised its catalog of journals flagged as untrustworthy, predatory, or incompatible with the interests of the Chinese research community. Dubbed the "Early Warning Journal List," the latest iteration, released last month, encompasses 24 journals from approximately a dozen publishers. Notably, it introduces a scrutiny of journals engaged in citation manipulation—a practice where authors artificially inflate their citation counts.
Yang Liying, an expert in scholarly literature at the National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, leads a team of around 20 researchers responsible for curating this annual list. Launched in 2020, the compilation process relies on input from the global research community and analysis of bibliometric data.
The list's influence is steadily growing, evidenced by its incorporation into directives issued by Chinese ministries to combat academic misconduct. Moreover, it is prominently featured on institutional websites nationwide. Journals listed often experience a decline in submissions from Chinese authors. Notably, this year witnesses a methodological shift in list development. Yang sheds light on the process and its changes in an exclusive interview with Nature.
Creating the List: A Yearly Endeavor
"We commence by soliciting feedback from Chinese researchers and administrators, keeping abreast of global discourse on emerging forms of misconduct," Yang explains. "In January, we scrutinize raw data from the Web of Science science-citation database, provided by Clarivate, a London-based publishing analytics firm, to compile a preliminary list of journals." This preliminary list is shared with relevant publishers, accompanied by explanations for potential inclusion.
Yang notes that publisher feedback occasionally prompts exclusions from the list if deemed reasonable. "Our objective isn't perfection; rather, continuous improvement," she adds. This year, engagements with publishers saw the list trimmed from approximately 50 to 24 journals.
Notable Changes in Methodology
"In previous years, journals were categorized by risk levels—high, medium, or low," Yang elaborates. "However, this year, we omitted risk categorization, realizing Chinese researchers largely bypassed these labels, instead opting to avoid listed journals altogether." Instead, the updated list provides detailed justifications for each inclusion.
Another notable change involves the abandonment of criteria based on rapid publication growth. "The proliferation of open-access journals has altered the landscape, enabling rapid article influx without compromising quality control," Yang observes. Hence, such criteria were deemed obsolete to avoid impeding market-driven processes.
Targeting Citation Anomalies
The revised list also casts a spotlight on journals exhibiting abnormal citation patterns. "Widespread discourse on citation manipulation prompted this inclusion," Yang asserts. "While discerning culpability—whether from journals or authors—poses a challenge, trends in citation data, provided by Clarivate, offer valuable insights." Future iterations aim to delve deeper into emerging citation manipulation methods.
Yang underscores the tangible impact of their efforts, citing publisher acknowledgments and subsequent investigations. Notably, the open-access publisher MDPI initiated inquiries following notification that four of its journals faced inclusion due to citation manipulation allegations.
Addressing Concerns About Chinese Publications
A notable criterion involves journals disproportionately featuring papers from Chinese researchers. Yang explains, "This phenomenon, coupled with exorbitant article processing fees and low citation impact, raises concerns in the Chinese research community." The goal is to encourage submission to internationally recognized journals, fostering global scientific contributions.
Conclusion: Impact and Evolution
The Early Warning Journal List has emerged as a vital resource for the Chinese research community, informing institutional policies and publication strategies. While criticisms persist, notably from affected researchers, the broader consensus acknowledges its role in safeguarding research integrity and fostering quality scholarship.
