The National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS Library) has formally discontinued its long‑standing CAS Journal Ranking, ending a system that shaped research evaluation in China for nearly two decades. The decision, first highlighted internationally by Nature, marks a major shift in how Chinese institutions assess scientific output and determine academic advancement.

The CAS ranking—known domestically as the CAS Journal Classification Table—was one of the most influential journal evaluation tools inside China. Its termination has triggered widespread uncertainty among universities, hospitals, and research institutes that relied on it for promotions, funding decisions, and publication strategies.

📘 What the CAS Journal Ranking System Was

Created in 2004, the CAS Journal Ranking was a tiered classification of scientific journals. It grouped journals into levels based on:

• Citation performance
• Field‑normalized impact
• Expert evaluation
• Discipline‑specific weighting

Unlike global databases such as Web of Science or Scopus, the CAS list was not a freely accessible international ranking. It was distributed primarily through institutional channels and used almost exclusively within China’s research ecosystem.

Its purpose was straightforward: provide Chinese researchers and administrators with a nationally standardized benchmark for journal quality.

🌍 Who Used the CAS Ranking — and Why It Mattered

The CAS ranking became deeply embedded in China’s academic infrastructure. It was widely used by:

• Universities for hiring, promotion, and tenure
• Hospitals and medical schools for evaluating clinical research
• Funding agencies for grant eligibility
• Provincial governments for talent programs
• Graduate schools for PhD graduation requirements

In many institutions, publishing in a top‑tier CAS journal became a prerequisite for:

• Promotion to associate or full professor
• Eligibility for major grants
• Recognition in national talent schemes

Although the list was not widely used outside China, its influence extended indirectly through international collaborations. Chinese researchers often selected journals based on CAS tiers, shaping publication patterns in fields such as materials science, chemistry, engineering, and medicine.

🛑 Why CAS Discontinued the Ranking

The CAS Library announced that it would stop updating and releasing the ranking from 2026 onward, aligning with China’s broader reforms in research assessment.

Key drivers include:

1. Reducing Over‑Reliance on Journal Metrics

China has been shifting toward article‑level evaluation, emphasizing research quality, originality, and societal impact over journal labels.

2. Addressing Distortions in Academic Behavior

The CAS ranking was criticized for encouraging:

• Excessive focus on high‑tier journals
• Topic selection driven by publication strategy rather than scientific need
• Pressure on early‑career researchers

3. Lack of Transparency

The methodology behind the ranking was not fully public, leading to confusion when journals moved between tiers.

4. High Maintenance Costs

Maintaining a national journal ranking requires:

• Continuous data collection
• Expert review panels
• Annual updates
• Infrastructure for evaluation and dissemination

This made the system expensive and labor‑intensive, especially as the number of journals worldwide continues to grow.

Ending the ranking reduces administrative burden and aligns with China’s push for more cost‑efficient, responsible research assessment.

🔄 What Comes Next: A Fragmented Transition Period

With the CAS ranking gone, Chinese institutions are entering a period of experimentation.

1. Universities May Shift to Web of Science Lists

Many administrators expect that institutions—especially those seeking international alignment—will rely more heavily on:

• Web of Science journal lists
• Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
• Impact Factor categories

These systems are already widely used globally and require no local maintenance.

2. Smaller Universities May Follow Larger Institutions

Maintaining an independent evaluation system is costly. As a result:

• Smaller universities and colleges may adopt the evaluation policies of top national universities.
• Provincial institutions may follow the strategies of leading universities in their region.
• Some may use hybrid systems combining Web of Science with local expert review.

3. Rise of Alternative Lists: Xinrui Scholar

According to Nature, some former CAS ranking team members have created a private replacement system called Xinrui Scholar, using a methodology similar to the original CAS list.

This has sparked debate about whether the underlying evaluation culture is truly changing.

4. Increased Use of Article‑Level Metrics

Institutions are exploring:

• Peer‑review reports
• Citation trajectories
• Societal impact statements
• Research integrity indicators

This aligns with global movements such as DORA and the Leiden Manifesto.

📉 Impact on Researchers and Institutions

The discontinuation has immediate consequences:

1. Promotion and Hiring Systems Must Be Rebuilt

Universities that relied heavily on CAS tiers must redesign:

• Promotion criteria
• Graduate requirements
• Grant evaluation rules

2. Publication Strategies Are Shifting

Researchers may now:

• Publish in a broader range of journals
• Prioritize relevance over ranking
• Consider open‑access or interdisciplinary venues previously undervalued by CAS

3. Increased Administrative Uncertainty

Until new systems stabilize, evaluation may vary widely between institutions.

🌐 Implications for Global Science, Technology, and AI

Although the CAS ranking was domestic, its discontinuation affects international research dynamics.

1. More Diverse Publication Choices

Chinese researchers may publish in:

• Emerging journals
• Niche AI and technology venues
• Interdisciplinary outlets
• Open‑access platforms

This could diversify global scientific communication.

2. Stronger Alignment With Global Standards

Shifting toward Web of Science and article‑level evaluation brings China closer to international norms.

3. Potential for More Innovation‑Driven Research

Reduced pressure to target specific journals may encourage:

• High‑risk, high‑reward projects
• Locally relevant research
• Long‑term scientific exploration

Conclusion

The end of the CAS journal ranking marks a major turning point in China’s research evaluation landscape. For nearly 20 years, the CAS list shaped academic careers, institutional policies, and publication strategies. Its discontinuation reflects China’s broader shift toward responsible, cost‑efficient, and article‑level assessment.

As universities adapt, many are expected to rely on Web of Science, adopt hybrid evaluation models, or follow the strategies of leading national institutions. The transition will be complex, but it may ultimately lead to a more balanced and innovation‑friendly research environment.