SSP Recap: Chinese Journals and the 5% to 30% Scenario

Take Home Points

• China’s research output grew 174% from 2017–2025 (vs. 16% in the US, 38% in Europe), and now accounts for over 21% of global scholarly output.
• China-based journals indexed in Clarivate grew from 355 (2020) to 589 (2024), with journals holding a Q1/Q2 JCR ranking rising from 46% to 61%.
• China’s Journal Excellence Action Plan targets ~3,000 English-language Chinese journals by 2030; new NSFC funding rules require 20% of a researcher’s key works to appear in Chinese-owned journals.
• Per a KGL Consulting survey, 63% of publishers would respond to declining Chinese submissions with more author outreach, not withdrawal — though only 10% call themselves very familiar with the Action Plan.
• Panelists — Dr. Teodoro Pulvirenti (ACS), Ning Zhang (TopEdit), and Kevin Lomangino (KGL), speaking at SSP’s 2026 Annual Meeting — agreed that success with Chinese journals depends on sustained local trust and guanxi (关系), not remote engagement

China’s evolving journal publishing strategy has become an increasingly important topic for scholarly publishers, as rapid growth in research output and new domestic publishing policies begin to influence the global research landscape.

From left to right: Adrian Stanley (KGL), Kevin Lomangino (KGL Consulting) at the SSP 2026 panel discussion

Recently, at the Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting in San Diego, our very own Adrian Stanley hosted a panel discussion with industry experts Dr. Teodoro Pulvirenti (American Chemical Society), Ning Zhang (TopEdit Author Services) and Kevin Lomangino (KGL Consulting). Together they explored the major shifts taking place in the Chinese journal landscape and how they are already affecting publishers globally, while sharing valuable insights and advice gleaned from their own personal experiences having worked on the ground in China. Here are several notable takeaways from the discussion for scholarly publishers.

China’s Indisputable Influence

China’s growing influence on scholarly publishing is indisputable. According to research presented by KGL’s Kevin Lomangino, between 2017 and 2025 China’s research output grew by +174%, outpacing the modest growth levels witnessed during the same period in the US (+16%) and Europe (+38%). Currently over 21% of all global scholarly output is authored or co-authored by a Chinese researcher.

Many international publishers have adjusted their focus to proactively court China-oriented research, and the substantial revenues it generates, by increasing investment in author engagement, editorial capacity and partnerships in China. This high-stakes strategy has paid off well in recent years as Chinese researchers have sought the kudos of publishing in high impact, reputable journals. But with Chinese research now constituting such a large share of international journal content, some publishers have left themselves exposed and vulnerable should this supply-demand dynamic change.

The Action Plan Takes Hold

Introduced in 2019, China’s Journal Excellence Action Plan was devised to strengthen domestic scholarly publishing and make China a leading publishing market in its own right. The program has turbocharged China’s domestic journal market. “In 2020, there were 355 China-based journals indexed in Clarivate, by 2024 that number had grown to 589,” commented Lomangino. “But alongside this growth, we’re also seeing improvement in quality indicators. The percentage of China-based journals with at least one Q1/Q2 JCR ranking increased from 46% to 61% during that same period.”

The Action Plan has already entered its second phase, with increased investment for hundreds of English and Chinese language journals and funding for large publishing platforms, extending China’s ambition to create a globally competitive publishing infrastructure.

“China is building its own publishing ecosystem, and it aims to publish around 3,000 English-language journals by 2030,” said TopEdit’s Dr Ning Zhang. “But perhaps the most significant differences between phase one and phase two of the Action Plan are China’s ambition to support 13 journal platforms, such as Tsinghua University Press for example, and its development of its own evaluation and citation system.”

Incentives, Competition, and Risk

Alongside huge infrastructural investment are broader policy changes designed to encourage and incentivize Chinese researchers to publish in Chinese-owned journals. Zhang added: “Major Chinese funding agencies, such as NSFC, now require that at least 20% of a researcher’s representative works are published in Chinese-owned journals. This, coupled with the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ recent announcement that it will not reimburse high APCs from certain journals, will likely make it increasingly challenging for international publishers to compete against increasingly attractive domestic alternatives.”

For international publishers with significant numbers of Chinese authors, these developments could have meaningful commercial implications.  Beyond revenue risk, reduced access to high-quality Chinese research could also affect a journal’s impact, readership and competitive positioning. Lomangino commented: “From a portfolio management perspective, the risk is substantial. If those funding incentives or researcher preferences shift and there is even a moderate change in author behavior, we could see a significant downstream impact for international publishers who rely heavily on Chinese submissions.”

Too Important to Ignore

Despite these risks, the panel unanimously agreed that retreating from China was not the answer, and that international publishers should instead deepen their engagement with the Chinese research community.

This sentiment was echoed by KGL’s publisher survey, which also suggests that the industry’s response to these changes is likely to be greater engagement, not withdrawal. It found that if China-authored submissions fell significantly, 63% of respondents said they would increase author outreach and engagement in China and 53% would strengthen partnerships, while 42% would increase their focus on other geographic growth markets. “The main conclusion from this survey is that China is simply too important to ignore, from a scientific, strategic and revenue standpoint. So even if the landscape changes. we’re going to have to find a way to adapt and compete effectively,” concluded Lomangino.

Despite the potential significance of these developments, KGL’s survey found relatively limited familiarity with the China Journal Excellence Action Plan. Of the publishers surveyed, only 10% described themselves as very familiar with the Plan and its implications, while 35% were either only slightly familiar or not familiar at all. This suggests that for some publishers, the first strategic challenge may simply be improving their market intelligence and understanding what their exposure might be in the light of the evolving Chinese journal landscape.

It’s About Trust

A prominent and recurrent theme throughout the discussion was that successful engagement in China was not something that can be achieved remotely, or overnight.

The panelists highlighted that publishers with the strongest relationships in the region have invested consistently in nurturing local partnerships, editorial representation and researcher engagement. Activities such as collaborating with Chinese institutions and scholarly societies, hosting conferences, events and forums, organizing training programs, and having a presence on platforms such as WeChat can all help to establish long term trust.

“We started out in China in 2017 with a small team of four members of staff and we now have a substantially larger editorial team of 30,” said Dr. Teodoro Pulvirenti from the American Chemical Society (ACS). “This reflects our commitment and the growth in our investment on site in China, to engage with the institutions, organizations and the community that is interacting with the funding agencies. It’s all about meeting where the community is and realistically, this is not something that can be achieved remotely.”

The main takeaway from the panel was that trust remains the foundation of any successful collaboration with China. Strong partnerships are built over time through consistent engagement, shared goals, mutual understanding of local priorities, and of course, Guanxi (关系).

The Next Chapter

China’s publishing landscape is more than just growing. It is being deliberately developed through investment in journals, publishing platforms, evaluation systems, editorial talent and international partnerships.

For international publishers, the challenge has moved beyond responding to individual policy changes and is now about understanding how China’s broader research and publishing ecosystem is evolving.

This SSP discussion suggested that the future may be less about Chinese and international journals competing in isolation, and more about an increasingly multi-centered global publishing ecosystem. Publishers that understand their exposure, monitor the data, invest in trusted relationships and develop meaningful local partnerships will be better positioned to navigate both the risks and opportunities that lie ahead.

KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd. (KGL) is the industry leader in editorial, production, eLearning, online hosting, and transformative services for every stage of the content lifecycle. We are your source for learning solutions, intelligent automation, research integrity, digital delivery, and more. Email us at info@kwglobal.com.