This study has cooperated with the Chinese administrative supervisor and representative editors to tackle the inconsistencies shown through the interactions between the governmental side (i.e. the investigator) and the editorial side (i.e. the respondents). The analysis of the questionnaire and interview materials obtained from the government-funded survey project addressed the two-sided problem: what is the mechanism involved between the editors' roles and the policy environment in the Chinese academic publishing system? The study aims to understand the relationship between the editors and Chinese academic publishing processes. To address this problem, this paper draws on neutral party field research to observe the intentions of different parties involved when managing and participating in this project. The data of the project was represented in a neutral manner, where editorial feedback, political considerations, and other participation responses were collected and analyzed. These valuable secondary data helped to find the key inconsistencies between the role of the editor and the academic system and its policy system. Our findings highlighted that financial, professional, and procedural problems are the inconsistencies that were largely shaped by exchange (cultural and political) capitals, working values, and the playing rules within the Chinese publishing field. The field research therefore prioritizes social interests (i.e. social capital) over economic benefits. Based on our observation in the study, we suggest the construction of a resource exchange model that delineates Chinese academic publishing efficiency. This proposed model emphasizes its cultural and political intervention within the Chinese academic publishing industry.
At the end of 2020, the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) released the Early Warning List (EWL) of International Journals as guidance for scholars to choose appropriate journals in which to publish. The aims of the study were to analyze the characteristics of medical-related journals in the list and to survey scholars in the field of burn specialty regarding their understanding of and attitude toward the journals in EWL to determine their attitude toward the list and the potential use of this list as a reference for international journal quality control. All 26 early warning medical journals in the EWL are characterized by a high proportion of articles from China, as well as a high rate of retraction. The average 5-year proportion of articles authored by Chinese scholars of 19 journals was over 50%, and three were over 90%. Eight journals each retracted more than 20 articles from 2016 to 2020. The questionnaire survey showed that most burn specialty scholars believed that the establishment of such a list was beneficial for enhancing research integrity and improving journal quality management, as well as selecting journals for publication. Based on our study, we recommend establishing a global list of early warning journals to allow the EWL to be updated regularly and released for free. Peer review could be introduced to boost credibility. The EWL released by CAS can provide important practical data for the 'global alliance of early warning journals' in the future.
