ORIGINAL ARTICLE

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) doi: 10.1002/leap.1486 Received: 1 February 2022 | Accepted: 17 June 2022 | Published online in Wiley Online Library: 27 July 2022

Editorial bias in top-tier education journals: Factors

influencing publishable scholarship in China
2*
Xiaohua Jiang ,1 and Yabing Shi

Abstract: Though not rare in the gatekeeping practices of journals, editorial

bias in China has received scant scholarly attention. Drawing on in-depth
interviews with 15 academics and 10 editors in the field of education and
collecting data on more than 1,522 scholarly articles published by the
Chinese journal Educational Research, we assessed the causes and conse-
Xiaohua Jiang Yabing Shi quences of editorial bias in a subset of the education journals covered
by the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI). Our findings indi-
1
School of Education, Shanghai International Studies
cate that the editorial biases revealed in some top-tier Chinese educa-
University, Shanghai, China
tion journals were associated mainly with academic fame, rank, and
2
College of Teacher Education, Zhejiang Normal
University, Jinhua, China
affiliation as well as personal relationships described by the term guanxi.
The causes of these biases include the desire to secure the status of
ORCID:
CSSCI-listed journals, short-staffed editorial teams, and an inadequate
X. Jiang: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5023-1008
Y. Shi: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1288-3627 peer-review system. Further, we found these biases to be associated
with three particular negative consequences: slowing the professional
*Corresponding author: Yabing Shi, College of Teacher
development of young academics, allowing the publication of mediocre
Education, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004,
China. articles and compromising the Chinese academic environment. We con-
E-mail: [email protected] clude that journal editors, reviewers and academics must work together
to safeguard a rigorous and constructive scholarly publishing system in
China.

Keywords: scholarly publishing, editorial bias, education journals,

gatekeeping

INTRODUCTION However, prior empirical studies have reported editorial

biases associated with factors such as gender, race, country of
Scholarly publishing has become the most important credential origin, reputation and institutional affiliation in the gatekeeping
for academics seeking to build academic prestige and obtain practices of academic journals worldwide (Cameron et al., 2016;
promotions, tenure, and grants (Li & Lee, 2014). Since journal De Oliveira et al., 2012; Moustafa, 2015; Zhu, 2021). For exam-
editors serve as the gatekeepers of the publishing process by ple, the fame of academics has been shown to play a significant
deciding whether a submission is sent out for external peer role in how favourably their work is received by journals (Bravo
review and is publishable thereafter (Grace, 2004), they are et al., 2017). Sarigöl et al. (2017) found that prior co-author rela-
generally expected to evaluate and accept articles based solely tionships between authors and editors had a large and significant
on the merit of the authors’ academic writings and the novelty influence on the handling times for manuscripts, with well-known
of their research. scholars receiving editorial decisions on average 19 days before

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. 585
Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
586 X. Jiang & Y. Shi

lesser-known scholars. Looking beyond the authors of papers,

Matías-Guiu and García-Ramos (2011) found that journals tended Key points
to be more likely to accept articles that present positive results • Many researchers consider Chinese education journals to
than those that present negative results. be biased in respect of which articles, and which authors,
Chinese journals are no exception when it comes to editorial
they publish.
bias. Through in-depth interviews with journal editors, Li and Lee
(2014) investigated the role of guanxi—which we define • Editors are under pressure to raise their impact with lim-
momentarily—in scholarly publications in the field of media stud- ited resources and may rely on indicators of prestige, such
ies and found that some Chinese scholars tended to exploit social as author affiliations for their decisions.
networks to gather information unavailable to the public, advance
• Editorial bias has negative effects on academia, particularly
the priority of their submissions, and increase their publication
rates. Guanxi was defined as ‘a dyadic, particular and sentimental on the professional development of young academics.
tie that has the potential of facilitating favorable exchanges • Authors from lower-ranked universities are less likely to
between the parties connected by the tie’ (Bian, 2006, p. 312). achieve publication in CSSCI-indexed journals, thus
Other scholars, such as Tam and Chen (2010), Zhang (2018) and
demoralizing individuals and preventing the universities
Li and Liu (2021) have examined the relationship between editors
and their sponsoring institutions and found guanxi networks to from rising up the ranks.
be responsible for the tendency of the journals published at a • The impact of guanxi, or networks, is a large factor in some
particular university to publish a disproportionately large number Chinese journal publishing.
of articles by that university’s scholars.
Within the large body of literature on editorial bias in aca-
demic journals (Allotey et al., 2017; Hsiehchen & of the contribution should be based not on the scientists’ per-
Espinoza, 2016), only a few studies have investigated the field sonal or social attributes (e.g., nationality or religious or political
of social sciences, and even fewer have focused on the situation affiliation) but on its scientific merits. Thus, for Merton (1973),
in China. Such research is particularly important since China has universalism is one of the key features of science in terms of
been the world’s second-largest producer of academic papers extending certified knowledge. Polanyi (2000) also considered
for the past 9 years, and the number of Chinese academics has universalism a defining norm of authority for establishing the
been increasing steadily (Li & Liu, 2021). What is more, few parameters of science and recognizing the work of scientists.
studies have assessed the perceptions of both the authors and From this perspective, science is a system based on the validity
the editors involved. Accordingly, the present study focuses on of the knowledge produced, and observance of the precept of
the gatekeeping practices of Chinese journals—in particular, the universalism ensures the objective assessment of scientific
education journals listed in the Chinese Social Sciences Citation research and recognition of the scientists who produce it.
Index (CSSCI)—from the perspectives of both university aca- Particularism, by contrast, involves the use of functionally
demics and journal editors. The CSSCI is an interdisciplinary irrelevant characteristics, such as race and gender, as a basis for
citation index of top-tier publications developed with the sup- making scientific claims and gaining recognition as a scientist.
port of the Chinese Ministry of Education. Chinese universities As Long and Fox (1995) argued, ambiguous criteria for evaluat-
encourage their faculty members to publish in CSSCI-listed ing scientific research favour particularistic outcomes, while
journals so as to raise the institutions’ profiles. Important faculty standardized criteria minimize particularistic outcomes. In other
decisions concerning tenure, promotion and the perquisites words, in the absence of universalistic standards, functionally
received by university academics are therefore decided to a irrelevant attributes can exert a strong influence on the recep-
great extent on the basis of publications in these journals. tion of scientific research. Though particularism has been widely
Through in-depth interviews and an in-depth analysis of one explored with respect to such considerations as promotion, ten-
CSSCI-listed journal in particular, we explored the forms, causes ure and grant applications, its prevalence in the editorial deci-
and consequences of editorial bias in some of the top-tier Chi- sions of academic journals has received relatively little scholarly
nese education journals. attention. Like Merton (1973), our interest is in efforts by the
editors of journals in the social sciences to impose ‘particularis-
tic criteria of validity’ (p. 270) by bending the rules for certain
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS authors.

Universalism and particularism in scholarly Social networks and guanxi practices in

publishing publishing
The scientific precept of universalism requires that, when The concept of guanxi mentioned above has been a central fea-
researchers present a potential contribution to scientific knowl- ture and a significant form of human interaction for millennia in
edge to the scientific community, the assessment of the validity Chinese culture, with origins that may trace back to

www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Editorial bias in top-tier education journals 587

Confucianism. Despite its culture-specific elements, guanxi put us in touch with their colleagues and friends. The partici-
belongs to a general category of human social connections or pants included 15 university academics (coded F1 to F15) and
networks. Lin’s (2001a) description of guanxi as a ‘social relation- 10 journal editors (coded E1 to E10; see Table 1 for the demo-
ship that builds social capital through social debt and social credit, graphic information about the interviewees). Among the 15 uni-
or the symbolic rent of social capital’ (p. 161) establishes a theo- versity academics whom we recruited, 7 were working at
retical link between the practice and the broader literature on universities selected by the Chinese government for its double
social networks. first class university plan, an initiative designed to develop
Lin (2001b) further argued that the social resources embed- 42 world-class institutions, and the rest at ordinary universities.
ded in guanxi can facilitate the flow of information, influence We determined after the recruitment that all of the academics
the distribution of resources, serve as social credentials for in our sample held a doctoral degree from top research universi-
those seeking favour and reinforce the identity and recognition ties, either domestic or overseas, and that all of the editors
of the actors involved. Useful in this context is the distinction were working at CSSCI-listed education journals.
between weak and strong ties in social networks. Generally We conducted the interviews over a 5-month period, from
speaking, weak ties are characterized by infrequent interactions July to November 2021. We asked the university academics
and low levels of intimacy, serve to relay non-redundant infor- about their experiences submitting manuscripts to CSSCI-listed
mation and, thereby, reduce the information asymmetry that is education journals and attitudes towards and perceptions of the
a source of uncertainty in market economies. In China, influence scholarly publishing system in China, and we asked the journal
networks are able to mobilize strong ties of trust and obligation editors about their gatekeeping practices and criteria for selecting
to obtain the favour of the authorities in charge of allocating manuscripts. We met with most of the interviewees face to face
resources in state socialist economies. Li and Lee (2014) but with a few of them online through WeChat, the most popular
pointed out that weak and strong ties produce qualitatively dif- multipurpose social networking app in China. We conversed with
ferent network resources: again, the former are more likely to all of the interviewees in Chinese. Each interview lasted around
convey information, whereas the latter are more likely to influ- 90 to 120 min. We obtained from each of the participants per-
ence those in power. mission to record the interviews and then transcribed the record-
Based on these theoretical considerations, we investigated ings in full. We continued conducting the interviews until we
the forms, causes and consequences of editorial bias in the gate- achieved saturation of themes.
keeping process of CSSCI-listed journals guided by two research To triangulate the interview data, we also collected data on a
questions: sample of more than 1,522 scholarly articles published from 2015
to 2020 in Educational Research, a CSSCI-listed Chinese education
RQ1: What, if any, editorial biases influence the gatekeeping prac- journal. The meta-data that we collected with the articles
tices of top-tier Chinese education journals? included the first authors’ academic titles and the ratio of empiri-
RQ2: What are the sources of editorial bias in these journals, cal to other types of studies (see Table 2). In addition, we col-
and to what extent does it influence outcomes in Chinese lected a sample of the public statements of journal editors and
academia? academics regarding the scholarly publishing system in China.

Data analysis
METHODS We performed the content analysis of the interview data using
NVivo 12.0 qualitative software (QSR International, 2020). We
We selected a qualitative research approach to investigate the coded the data to reveal any significant biases in the gatekeeping
gatekeeping practices of education journals covered by the CSSCI practices of the CSSCI-listed education journals along with the cau-
and their influence on Chinese academia. We concentrated on ses and consequences of these biases. We maintained considerable
journals in a single field (i.e., social science) to balance the breadth openness in the coding process since we could not determine the
and depth of our investigation. accuracy of the analytical framework prior to the collection and
analysis of the data. Our flexible methods for coding and data anal-
ysis helped to ensure that we would identify any unexpected
Data collection
themes. We coded the data for each interview sequentially, com-
We employed semi-structured interviews to collect the data pleting the coding for one before moving on to the next in such a
necessary to answer the research questions in all of their com- way that the coding of the latter interviews affected and modified
plexity. We prepared the interview protocol (available upon the previous coding. After the open coding, we merged and sum-
request) in Mandarin based, in the first place, on the results of marized the relevant codes, removed the redundant codes in the
our review of the literature. We then refined the protocol fur- process of induction, established the generic relationships among
ther in light of a pilot interview with a Chinese academic in the the codes, and formed the spindle codes (Table 3).
field of education. We used snowball sampling to recruit partici- While some of the themes relating to editorial bias echo
pants for our sample, starting with 10 personal contacts who those found in the existing literature, such as guanxi (in the

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 © 2022 The Authors. www.learned-publishing.org

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
588 X. Jiang & Y. Shi

TABLE 1 Basic Information about the interviewees

Respondent Gender Age group Academic ranka Area of studies/journal type Double first institution

F1 Male 45–50 Associate Educational assessment /

F2 Female 35–40 Assistant Education management Double first class university

F3 Female 30–35 Assistant Educational assessment /

F4 Female 30–35 Associate Comparative education Double first class university

F5 Male 40–45 Full Basic education /

F6 Male 50–55 Full Educational technology /

F7 Female 30–35 Associate Educational psychology Double first class university

F8 Male 30–35 Assistant Higher education /

F9 Female 35–40 Assistant Language education /

F10 Male 35–40 Assistant Educational sociology /

F11 Male 35–40 Associate Curriculum and instruction Double first class university

F12 Female 40–45 Associate Education management Double first class university

F13 Male 35–40 Assistant Higher education Double first class university

F14 Female 45–50 Full Comparative education Double first class university

F15 Female 35–40 Assistant Educational management /

E1 Male 30–35 Editor Doctoral degree

E2 Male 40–45 Chief editor Master’s degree

E3 Female 35–40 Editor Doctoral degree

E4 Female 45–50 Chief editor Bachelor’s degree

E5 Male 35–40 Chief editor Master’s degree

E6 Male 35–40 Chief editor Master’s degree

E7 Male 40–45 Chief editor Master’s degree

E8 Male 45–50 Associate editor Doctoral degree

E9 Female 45–50 Chief editor Bachelor’s degree

E10 Male 40–45 Chief editor Master’s degree

a
All Academics were professors: full, associate or assistant.

sense of relationships between authors and editors), academic academic rank’ and ‘bias associated with manuscript solicita-
affiliation, and fame bias, these themes took on distinct conno- tion’. The first author translated from Chinese to English the
tations in the context of our analysis. We also identified themes portions of the interviews reproduced in this paper, which the
not mentioned in the literature, such as ‘bias associated with corresponding author then proofread and edited.

TABLE 2 Analysis of study type and authors from articles published in Educational Research from 2015 to 2020
Year No. of Articles Full professor Associate professor Assistant professor Doctoral students The ratio of empirical studies

2015 284 55.6% 20.6% 5.0% 18.9% 33.2%

2016 276 55.8% 20.1% 5.0% 19.1% 21.9%

2017 286 56.8% 31.3% 6.8% 5.1% 38.1%

2018 274 57.7% 22.8% 5.8% 13.8% 22.8%

2019 218 64.3% 17.8% 5.3% 12.6% 29.7%

2020 184 69.5% 16.0% 6.1% 8.4% 28.3%

www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Editorial bias in top-tier education journals 589

TABLE 3 Categories and themes from the interview data Fame bias towards prestigious scholars
Categories Themes Most of the participants in our study (both the academics and
Editorial biases revealed in Fame bias towards prestigious the editors) expressed the opinion that the CSSCI-listed educa-
some CSSCI-listed scholars tion journals have tended to invite prominent scholars to contrib-
education journals
Editorial bias associated with ute manuscripts or serve as guest editors and, in turn, solicit
academic rank papers from other well-known scholars with whom they have
Editorial bias associated with personal ties. In fact, the solicitation of manuscripts from famous
academic affiliation scholars has become increasingly common in Chinese academic
Editorial bias in favour of publishing in recent years, leaving correspondingly less space for
manuscripts associated with unsolicited manuscripts. One of the participants (E1), as an editor
guanxi networks for a CSSCI-listed education journal, estimated that only one-
Causes of editorial bias in Securing CSSCI-listed status third of the articles published in it were unsolicited. Similarly, in
CSSCI-listed education June 2021, Li Jianjun, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Xinjiang
journals Short-staffed editorial teams
and an inadequate peer- Normal University, disclosed that one of his main strategies for
review system improving the circulation of his journal in comparison with other
Consequences of editorial bias Hindering the professional journals was soliciting manuscripts from prestigious scholars,
in some CSSCI-listed development of young which accounted for more than 90% of the annual publications
education journals academics (Li, 2021).
Publication of mediocre articles The editors whom we interviewed for this study regarded
solicitation as an effective approach to improving the quality and
Undermining the integrity of
and fairness in academia impact of their journals. The academics, by contrast, especially
the younger ones, expressed strong discontentment with the
practice of solicitation for limiting their opportunities to publish
FINDINGS in CSSCI-listed journals. As two of them stated,

Editorial biases revealed in some CSSCI-listed More and more journals tend to organize special issues,
education journals but few publicize their special issues to wide audiences in
advance; they just invite well-known scholars’ manuscripts
Peer review is the basic system used worldwide for screening
in private. I feel that journal publication has become a kind
potential contributions to academic journals. This approach is
of precious resource only available to a few leading
considered superior to editorial review based on the assump-
scholars and their students. It’s hard for us ordinary
tion that external reviewers tend to be more competent and
authors to get such information [i.e., about opportunities
objective than the editors of journals in evaluating the quality
to contribute]. (F1)
of submissions (Kelly et al., 2014). However, Chinese journals,
including those serving the field of education, have tradition-
ally employed a three-stage reviewing approach involving pre-
I think more and more articles published in CSSC-listed
liminary review by an editor of a journal, secondary review by
education journals have been solicited from well-known
the head of the journal’s editorial department, and final review
scholars by editors in the past few years. There are indeed
by the editor-in-chief (Fang et al., 2008). It was not until the
a large number of such solicited papers published in each
mid-1990s that some Chinese journals started to reform this
issue. (F10)
approach in an effort to improve the quality of scholarly pub-
lishing in the country. Since then, an increasing number of the
CSSCI-listed education journals have adopted an online anon- Some researchers have found that, different from the
ymous (peer) reviewing system modelled on Western practices Western practice in which both solicited and unsolicited papers
that supplements, rather than replaces, the three-stage undergo rigorous peer review, solicited manuscripts rarely
approach (Fig. 1) (Li, 2011). After more than two decades of undergo peer review before publication in Chinese journals
employing this modified practice, many Chinese education since the editors tend simply to assume that the work is of high
journals have shown significant improvements in the quality of quality (Luo, 2018; Zhong & Wen, 2022). Some of the editors
the research that they publish. This reform has not, however, and academics interviewed for our study confirmed that they
eliminated editorial bias in journals. had never rejected an invited manuscript or had one rejected,

Head of editorial department

FIGURE 1 The review process of Chinese Editor Editor-in-chief
Peer review
journals.

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 © 2022 The Authors. www.learned-publishing.org

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
590 X. Jiang & Y. Shi

respectively. We cite the following as representative comments assistant professors and doctoral students to publish in
on this issue: CSSCI-listed journals. (F14)

We only solicit manuscripts from well-known scholars In recent years, quite a few studies have shown the bias of
who are the leading experts in the field and have great the CSSCI-listed journals against graduate students and assistant
academic capability and influence. Besides, we usually professors (Liu, 2015; Zhong, 2021). University professors and
communicate with them in advance about our specific editors have also expressed their concerns publicly in media dis-
requirements, such as the desired topic, so as to maximize cussions of this type of bias. For example, Liu Ning, a full profes-
the match between the article and the journal; that’s why sor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, criticized the
we don’t reject solicited manuscripts. (E4) obvious discrimination against younger scholars in many journals
and encouraged Chinese journals in the social sciences to offer
them more opportunities to publish (Jiang, 2020).
As my fame increases in my field, more editors are inviting
me to contribute to their journals. These kinds of invited
papers can always get published because the editors think Editorial bias associated with academic affiliation
you are doing them a favour. (F14) Vidovich et al. (2007) reported that many Chinese journals pub-
lish only papers by contributors affiliated with prestigious univer-
sities and that contributors affiliated with less prestigious
universities often have little chance of publishing in top-tier
Editorial bias associated with academic rank
journals. Our research confirmed that at least some editors of
According to our analysis, of all of the papers published in the education journals preferred manuscripts by academics from
Chinese journal Education Research over the past 6 years, the pro- prestigious universities—in particular, the 42 double first class
portion for which the first authors were full professors ranged universities—to those by academics at regional universities and
from 55.6% to 69.5%, while the proportion for which the first vocational colleges. Indeed, some journals state clearly in the
authors were assistant professors ranged from 5.0% to 6.8% (see guidelines for authors that only manuscripts from researchers at
Table 2). While most of the editors whom we interviewed attrib- double first class universities receive consideration (Wang, 2020).
uted the imbalance to variation in the authors’ academic abilities Editors may also visit these universities to solicit manuscripts, as
and denied that they had discriminated against less-established one of the academics whom we interviewed explained:
researchers (i.e., assistant professors and doctoral students), the
academics whom we interviewed generally asserted that they
A chief editor contacted our department chair and said
had personal experience of bias associated with academic rank,
that he would like to visit our institution and see whether
as the following examples show,
there were any topics that they were interested in to put
together a special issue. During his visit to our department,
Recently, I collaborated with a PhD student to write a each of us introduced our research topic; then, the editor
paper. We submitted it to a CSSCI-list journal with the solicited six papers for one special issue from us. Though
student being the first author. After two months, the edi- the manuscripts also need to be reviewed, I think the
tor contacted me and asked if I would be the first author. I review may not be strict. After all, they invited us to con-
refused his request because this paper was mainly written tribute those manuscripts. (F7)
by the student; I did not think I should take credit for his
work. (F4)
Many of the academics whom we interviewed (specifically,
F1, F3, F6, F8, F9, F10, and F15) affirmed that it was more diffi-
I once took part in a conference hosted by a CSSCI-listed cult for authors from secondary universities to publish in CSSCI-
journal when I was still an assistant professor. All of the listed journals than those from the Double First Class Universi-
participants were expected to submit their papers to the ties. These academics, having, as mentioned, earned their
journal, but only eight papers were accepted. My article doctoral degrees from top universities, said that they had publi-
was rejected. The journal editor told me frankly that it was shed several papers in CSSCI-listed journals during their PhD
because my academic rank was not high enough. They studies but, after graduation, had less success publishing in the
didn’t care much about my research content but just CSSCI journals, an outcome that they attributed to their current
excluded me because of my academic rank. (F5) positions at less prestigious institutions, as the following quotes
make clear:

It’s always difficult to publish in CSSCI-listed journals.

However, I think, with my promotion to higher academic I think academic affiliation matters regarding scholarly
rank, it is getting easier. I think, compared with full profes- publishing. I feel that my current university is not well-
sors and associate professors, it is more difficult for recognized in our discipline, so, compared with my peers

www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Editorial bias in top-tier education journals 591

who found work at reputed institutions after graduation, articles in CSSCI-listed journals before graduation, it is an implicit
we need to make several times as much effort to publish responsibility of their supervising professors to help them do so,
an article, and it’s hard for us to catch up with them. (F15) either through co-authorship or facilitating their guanxi. One aca-
demic whom we interviewed (F4) frankly admitted that her PhD
I once submitted a manuscript to a CSSCI-listed journal, supervisor’s guanxi had helped to publish three or four papers in
and the editor replied that they prefer manuscripts from CSSCI-listed journals. Several other academic participants shared
Double First Class Universities and don’t accept contribu- similar observations:
tions from secondary universities. It’s ridiculous! How can
there be such a thing? (F9)
You can see that, after a professor becomes the guest edi-
tor of a special issue, most authors in this [special edition
Several of the editors in our sample (specifically, E2, E7, E8 of the] journal tend to be his or her colleagues, old friends,
and E10) acknowledged frankly their preference for manuscripts or students. For example, in the latest special issue of X
from scholars at prestigious universities since, according to them, journal, which is about rural education, there are six first
such manuscripts are not only of higher quality but also circulate authors from the same department at the same univer-
more widely and are cited more frequently. As one stated, sity. (F5)
‘Although there are good manuscripts by authors from ordinary
universities too, the ratio is relatively lower; besides, their influ- I feel that people who have guanxi with journal editors or
ence is relatively weak’ (E7). However, the academics, especially leading scholars are more likely to get the information
those employed at less-prestigious universities, pointed out that about special issues, and they are more likely to be directly
this preference involved screening out good articles by scholars solicited for manuscripts, of which 100 per cent are publi-
from such institutions. shed. Some leading scholars intervene in the publishing
process, ignoring proper procedures. I think this is a very
terrible phenomenon. We need much improvement in the
Editorial bias in favour of manuscripts associated with
fairness of the journal publication process. (F10)
guanxi networks
Playing the role of the gatekeepers of journals, editors control
the evaluation and selection of manuscripts, thus occupying a
strategically powerful position within the collective activity of Causes of editorial bias in CSSCI-listed
scholarship (Crane, 1967). When journals side-step the peer- education journals
review system, guanxi networks act as a highly selective means of
communication between the editors and the authors of articles. Securing CSSCI-listed status
Direct guanxi with editors. Through the operation of guanxi, as Scholars at Nanjing University began developing the CSSCI in
discussed, the editors of some education journals may grant privi- 1998 as part of an effort to control the quality of Chinese
leges or favours that enhance the acceptance of certain manu- journals, and launched it in 2000 with the support of the Chinese
scripts. The academics interviewed for this study listed among Ministry of Education. The index collects all of the sources and
these privileges (1) information privilege regarding plans for spe- citation information from all of the papers published in the
cial issues only available to certain types of authors, (2) bypassing Chinese source journals. The 2021–2022 edition of the CSSCI
preliminary screening (an especially important privilege given the covers 583 of these source journals, among which 37 are
high desk-reject rate and lengthy preliminary round of conven- devoted to education (Institute for Chinese Social Sciences
tional contributions) and (3) more rapid publication than less- Research and Assessment, 2021). We observed that, overall, the
connected authors enjoy. Since scholarly publishing is gruelling total number of CSSCI-listed journals has remained unchanged
and time-consuming, with the complete process often lasting for over the past 20 years.
a year or more, some authors may leverage their guanxi networks Since belonging to the “CSSCI club” enhances a journal’s rep-
so as to ‘jump the queue’. utation, attracting financial support and, ostensibly, high-quality
Leading scholars’ guanxi. As noted, some journals not only manuscripts, editors have been sparing no effort to ensure their
invite contributions from elite academics but also ask them to journals are and remain listed. According to its editorial depart-
serve as guest editors to solicit contributions from other scholars. ment, the CSSCI selects its source journals mainly based on the
Most of the academics interviewed for this study (i.e., F1, F6, F8, overall citation rate and impact factor, the latter of which is a
F11, F14 and F15) observed that some CSSCI-listed journals have quantification of the average number of citations received by
come to represent a sphere of influence for certain leading aca- recently published articles in a given journal. The rankings are
demics. That is, once a scholar serves a guest editor for a special updated every 2 years, and, if the impact factor of a CSSCI jour-
issue or has otherwise built connections with the editors-in-chief nal increases only slowly, it is replaced on the list by another jour-
of these journals, his or her colleagues and students often find it nal with a higher impact factor (Institute for Chinese Social
easy to publish articles in them. Notably, since doctoral students Sciences Research and Assessment, 2018). Almost all of the edi-
at most Chinese universities are required to publish multiple tors who participated in our study described being under

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 © 2022 The Authors. www.learned-publishing.org

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
592 X. Jiang & Y. Shi

enormous pressure to secure or maintain their journals’ CSSCI- personal attributes of the authors. As an editor and an academic
listed status, and, in order to increase their impact factors, often whom we interviewed explained,
soliciting manuscripts from well-known scholars.
The editors of journals quite reasonably expect that articles
In our editorial office, there are only two editors, the chief
by prestigious authors will have the desired effect on the overall
editor and me, and I have to be responsible for both the
citation rate and impact factor because academics tend to sup-
preliminary screening and inviting external reviewers,
port the arguments in their papers by citing prominent scholars
while the editor-in-chief determines whether to accept the
(Wang & Weldon, 2006). The pressure on editors is compounded
manuscripts in the final stage. The average number of
by the fact that the impact factor is calculated over a two-year
manuscripts we receive every day is 20, which would be
window and that attention decay seems increasingly pronounced
600 a month. It is really difficult for me to read each man-
within the academic community (Parolo et al., 2015). As one par-
uscript carefully. I have to use some simple standards for
ticipant described the situation,
the preliminary screening, such as the topic of the article
and the authors’ institution and academic titles. You know,
We journal editors also face enormous pressure to it’s more likely that authors from top universities will write
increase the citation of our journals since one of the core better articles. (E3)
criteria for CSSCI evaluation is the impact factor. Generally
speaking, if we invite papers from famous experts, the
Some editors are not professionals; they are not aca-
probability of the articles being cited is higher. For exam-
demics. They only know that there are some leading
ple, in the field of comparative education, whatever Pro-
scholars in the field, and they pay special attention to
fessor Gu Mingyuan [a leading Chinese scholar in the field]
these scholars. And, they believe, the higher your aca-
says, everyone will pay attention to it. Thus, in order to
demic title is, or the more prestigious the university you
maintain our CSSCI status, we now have to solicit manu-
are from, the more likely you are to write good manu-
scripts. (E2)
scripts. That’s why I always say that academic journals
should be run by experts, and editors-in-chief should be
leading scholars in the academic community. (F1)

Short-staffed editorial teams and an inadequate

peer-review system Inadequate peer-review system. Whereas peer-review is a
basic norm for gatekeeping in Western journals, in China, the edi-
Though the editorial and review processes of the CSSCI-listed
tors of journals, especially editors-in-chief, enjoy nearly complete
education journals have, in general, become increasingly stan-
discretion regarding which articles to publish and when. As dis-
dardized, there are still reports of editorial bias from time to time.
cussed, Chinese editors may solicit manuscripts directly from
The interviewees for our study attributed the problem largely to
scholars and expedite or overlook the peer review process, espe-
overworked editorial teams and shortcomings of the peer-review
cially for articles with the potential to enhance the impact factor
system. The following discussion considers each of these issues
of their publications. In the case of unsolicited manuscripts, the
in turn.
peer review process is also far from transparent since journals do
Short-staffed editorial teams. Horbach and Halffman (2020)
not suggest any improvements or offer feedback when they
observed that many academic journals in China had small editorial
reject manuscripts, whether they have been peer-reviewed or
offices with only a few editors, a simple staff structure, and little
not, instead offering brief, vague comments such as “your manu-
task specialization while, by contrast, the large international pub-
script is not of sufficient quality for our journal.” What is worse,
lishers featured a highly specialized division of labour and long
most journals keep authors waiting for at least 3 months before
procedural production chains. The editorial offices of journals,
desk-rejecting those manuscripts. As a result, many academics
then, are often short-staffed in China, with relatively few individ-
have come to regard the anonymous peer-review in its Chinese
uals being responsible for everything from the screening of pre-
form as little more than a ritual with strategic rather than scien-
liminary manuscripts and the second review to copyediting,
tific significance. An opaque review system of this sort creates
proofreading, and distribution. Besides, the members of the edi-
fertile ground for particularism, favouritism, and the influence of
torial staff of many Chinese academic journals usually include
guanxi while failing to provide guidance that can contribute to
administrators with permanent status rather than scholars in the
the academic growth of the scholars who submit manuscripts for
field that the journal serves (Li, 2011; Xu, 2005). Moreover, the
publication, as two of the academics observed during the inter-
number of contributions to CSSCI-listed journals has been
views for this study:
increasing in recent years owing to the increasing demand on
scholars to publish (Zhong, 2021). Therefore, in order to improve
the efficiency of the preliminary review, editors, who are often I understand that there are papers submitted to journals
pressed for time to evaluate manuscripts on their merits, look to not fitting with the journal’s scope or with poor quality,
the reputation, academic affiliation, professional title and other however, journals should desk-reject those manuscripts at

www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Editorial bias in top-tier education journals 593

a timely manner. Rejecting these papers straight away prestigious universities but had graduated from top research
saves us time. (F1) universities—spoke of having chosen to ‘lie flat’, meaning that
they were no longer willing to invest much time or energy in
It is important to have review feedback. Then, you know research since they considered it unlikely that they would be able
why you got rejected and how you can improve. However, to publish their results regardless of the quality of their manu-
in my experience, for most CSSCI-listed education scripts. As one academic put it,
journals, when you get rejected, you only see a brief rejec-
tion notice. (F5)
It’s really difficult for young academics to publish CSSCI-
listed papers now. No matter how well you write, some
It has been two years since I submitted a manuscript to a journal editors just do not bother themselves to read them
journal. Its online system shows that the manuscript is still [manuscripts] because they already have tons of manu-
in the preliminary review, but it has neither been rejected scripts and invited papers. Young academics working at
nor given any feedback. It’s normal for journals not to give local universities have no guanxi, no fame; there is very lit-
feedback with their review opinions. (F15) tle chance for them to publish. In the past two years, I
have received countless rejections, and I have really
However, three of the editors whom we interviewed (E3, E5 started to doubt myself. I don’t know whether I am still
and E6) defended the lack of peer review, adducing two main qualified to do research. (F14)
arguments. First, Chinese journals pay reviewers for external
review, which can be a large financial burden, so, to save money,
they select only a few manuscripts that they expect to be out-
standing for external review. Second, since the process of peer Publication of mediocre articles
review is time-consuming, there is concern that strict adherence
Although the general quality of education research by Chinese
to it will lead the authors of high-quality manuscripts to seek out
scholars has been improving steadily over the years since many
journals with relatively brief review periods.
journals adopted a peer review system, our findings clearly indi-
cate that inferior submissions still frequently find their way into
Consequences of editorial bias in some print because of editorial biases in favour of prestigious scholars
CSSCI-listed education journals and those with guanxi. Thus, Zhao et al. (2008) analysed articles
published in the Chinese Journal of Education Research and found
Hindering the professional development of young that around 70% were conceptual reports based on the authors’
academics personal reflections or observations with no supporting empirical
Young academics in general often face numerous difficulties in data. Our content analysis confirmed this finding, in that, among


the struggle to secure a stable professional position (Castello the papers published in Education Research from 2015 to 2020,
et al., 2015). The prevalence of editorial bias in academic journals most involved personal speculation, with only around 25% offer-
is difficult to estimate, but the favouritism towards famous ing supporting empirical data. Likewise, according to many of the
authors from reputed institutions evident in certain journals, we academics interviewed for the present study, at least some of the
argue, is pervasive enough to undermine young academics’ self- articles published in the CSSCI-listed education journals are of
confidence and enthusiasm for conducting research. In the case mediocre quality and lack originality. As two of them explained,
of the CSSCI-listed education journals, outstanding young aca-
demics can still, with great effort, secure the publication of their
articles in these journals. Most young academics, however, have I don’t understand why some famous scholars publish like
little chance for publication because of the journals’ tendency to crazy. They publish 20 to 30 mediocre articles per year
instead of just focusing on one high-quality paper. Maybe
solicit manuscripts from reputed scholars. Young academics who
have no guanxi with well-known scholars or editors are vulnera- their universities push them this way; otherwise, it really
ble to the negative effects of editorial bias since they must sub- doesn’t make sense. By publishing such papers, they are
slapping their own faces and ruining their own reputations.
mit their manuscripts through the preliminary screening and
reviewing process, which, as has been seen, tends to be lengthy, Why can’t they just write one influential article a year
to feature a high desk rejection rate, and not to provide detailed instead of 10 mediocre ones? (F8)
feedback. Manuscripts by scholars with guanxi, by contrast, often
receive prompt consideration by the editors-in-chief of CSSCI- If you read articles published in CSSCI-listed journals, you
listed journals. will find that not every paper is of good quality. Generally
Because their opportunities to publish are limited, then, many speaking, I don’t think every author treats solicitation seri-
young Chinese scholars have been finding themselves plagued by ously; they don’t have enough time to polish their manu-
self-doubt and diminished motivation. Thus, some of the inter- scripts well. They write casually, as is obvious. We readers
viewees for this study—mainly those who were working at less aren’t idiots, right? How can those editors be so sure that

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 © 2022 The Authors. www.learned-publishing.org

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
594 X. Jiang & Y. Shi

their solicited manuscripts are better than the unsolicited established reputations, guanxi, and affiliations with prestigious
ones without referring them to peer review? (F13) institutions to publish more and more, leaving those who are less
established in their fields and enjoy less guanxi with ever fewer
opportunities to publish. Ultimately, then, a few scholars publish
Undermining the integrity of and fairness in academia a disproportionate amount of the journal articles while most
A further deleterious effect of editorial bias has been the erosion scholars publish little or nothing.
of professionalism in the Chinese academic community. Despite
the standardization of and improvements in the scholarly publish-
ing system of Chinese journals in general over the past 20 years, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
the gatekeeping process of some CSSCI-listed education journals
has remained far from transparent. The lack of oversight has It is the consensus of academics worldwide that scientific evalua-
encouraged some opportunists to employ corrupt methods to tion should be based solely on academic merit and without refer-
ensure that their manuscripts are published in influential journals. ence to researchers’ social characteristics, relationships, or biases
In 2021, for example, the China Inspection Network indicted (Merton, 1973). However, the process of publishing academic
Zhou Yong, the former chief editor of Hunan Social Sciences, a articles in journals is susceptible to prejudice and social bias
CSSCI-listed journal, for bribery, specifically, for preferring the (Nicholas et al., 2006). As Chan (2008), Wang et al. (2021), and Li
articles of certain individuals for publication in this journal. and Liu (2021) have observed, Chinese journals are not immune
Even worse, the particularism of a few education journals has to the influence of particularism, favouritism and nepotism. Our
undermined academics’ confidence in the fairness of the Chinese in-depth interviews with 15 university academics and 10 journal
publishing system as a whole. Young academics and doctoral stu- editors in the field of education in China showed that, despite
dents have been expressing concern in this regard frequently on efforts by the CSSCI-listed journals to improve the quality of
open platforms such as Fabiaoji (www.fabiaoji.com/), an influen- their content, editorial biases are still evident in some, though not
tial website created by young academics in 2018 to evaluate Chi- all, of them, in particular with respect to authors’ fame, institu-
nese journals. Many of the academics whom we interviewed held tional affiliation, academic rank, and guanxi networks. Such biases
similar sentiments, for example, limit the publication opportunities for young academics and dam-
age their morale while allowing mediocre manuscripts through
the review process and, thereby, exerting a corrosive influence
While ordinary academics need to submit through the
on academic professionalism and the academic environment
online system and go through the lengthy steps of review,
generally.
solicited manuscripts from well-known scholars or guanxi
While Li and Lee (2014) described guanxi practices in Chi-
manuscripts can directly bypass the preliminary review
nese scholarly publication in terms of multi-layered particularism,
and even the external reviews. This is just like playing in
with the sponsoring institution occupying a central position in
the Olympic Games. We have to start from the qualifica-
journals’ guanxi networks, our findings reveal that well-known
tion competition and have to pass five stages to reach the
scholars at prestigious universities have occupied the centre of
final competition while those people with guanxi or fame
these guanxi webs wherever they exist. In the case of the CSSCI-
just directly get their manuscripts accepted and published.
listed education journals, a combination of the pressure to secure
This is so unfair. (F8)
CSSCI status, inadequate review mechanisms and vague quality
criteria has allowed the editors of some journals to form co-
Accordingly, many academics consider it more effective to dependent relationships with prominent scholars, soliciting manu-
ride the coattails of leading scholars than to exert the effort to scripts from and working with them to dominate the available
write good papers. Eager for quick success and immediate publishing resources. Thus, these editors cultivate reciprocal con-
rewards, they focus less on the quality of their research than on nections with the scholars to improve the citation statistics for
building guanxi with editors and leading scholars. One of our aca- their journals and maintain their CSSCI listing. The scholars, in
demic interviewees (F1), for instance, described interpersonal turn, rely on these editors to publish the results of their research,
relationships as a key factor when it comes to publication in enhance the reputation of their universities and help their doc-
CSSCI-listed journals: toral students to graduate.
Most of the editors whom we interviewed defended as natu-
ral selectivity such particularistic behaviours as soliciting manu-
I feel it’s hard to publish if you don’t have guanxi, so I am
scripts and preliminary screening based on the ‘halo effect’. From
desperate to build guanxi. It seems that, if you know the
their perspective, statistically, the submissions from prestigious
editor-in-chief personally or cooperate with prominent
universities and scholars have proved to be of superior quality
scholars, you can publish easily. (F3)
and to garner more citations. We argue, however, that it is inap-
propriate for any journal editor to select manuscripts at the
Editorial biases can also lead to the ‘Matthew effect’, that is, expense of procedural justice for the specific purpose of securing
in the Chinese context, the tendency of professors with or maintaining CSSCI status, for this practice violates the spirit of

www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Editorial bias in top-tier education journals 595

academic impartiality as well as merit-based norms. What is more, authors to share their experiences submitting manuscripts and
citation scores and similar data about articles do not accurately help others to determine which journals are likely to offer them a
represent the quality of papers owing to such confounding fac- fair chance at publication.
tors as negative citations and flattering citations (Durieux &
Gevenois, 2010). Therefore, the citation rate does not necessarily
correlate with the quality of articles, while the publication of large
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
proportions of solicited articles is harmful to the academic
RESEARCH
integrity.
Widely recognized international journals are subject to the
The main limitation of the present study was the focus on a sin-
scrutiny of an often-anonymous group of experts in the fields
gle discipline, namely education. In order to explore the generaliz-
that they serve who work to ensure that published papers are
ability of the findings to other disciplines, researchers could
consistent with established standards. Chinese journals in recent
extend the methodology to larger and more varied groups of par-
years have also added external anonymous review to the coun-
ticipants and a range of disciplines. In addition, since the study
try’s established three-stage review process. However, not all
involved the collection of data from one education journal and
journals adhere to a rigorous review system. It is for this reason
interviews with a relatively small number of academics and edi-
that we, following Li (2011), have described external review in
tors, future studies could explore the issues that we raise here
some CSSCI-listed education journals as often little more than a
further by considering more journals and larger samples of
strategic ritual, a façade masking the particularistic behaviours of
participants.
journal editors within the academic community. In 2021, the Chi-
nese government initiated a national policy intended to enhance
the peer review mechanism of academic journals and eliminate ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
‘guanxi manuscripts’ and, thereby, improve the global reputation
We would like to acknowledge Dr Shengli Ren for his insights
and influence of Chinese journals. Under this policy, we argue,
that greatly improved our work. Notably,we are grateful to Edi-
the need remains to establish more broadly a fair, reliable, and
tor-in-Chief Pippa Smart for her great editorial support and to all
constructive online management system that evaluates the work
anonymous reviewers’ constructive feedback.
of Chinese academics based on its virtues rather than the
authors’ fame, institutional affiliations, academic rank, or relation-
REFERENCES
ships with the editors of scholarly publications. Most importantly
Allotey, P., Allotey-Reidpath, C., & Reidpath, D. D. (2017). Gender
for the legitimacy of the process and minimization of particular-
bias in clinical case reports: A cross-sectional study of the “big
ism, editors should adopt the anonymous peer review approach five” medical journals. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177386. org/10.1371/
for all contributions. journal.pone.0177386
Additionally, the editors of journals should be leading Bian, Y. (2006). Guanxi. In J. Beckert & M. Zafirovski (Eds.), International
scholars in their fields with the qualifications to evaluate the encyclopedia of economic sociology (pp. 312–314). Routledge.
research in specific articles effectively and impartially. Other mea-
Bravo, G., Farjam, M., Grimaldo, M. F., Birukou, A., & Squazzoni, F.
sures, such as the regular publication of journals’ submission (2017). Hidden connections: Network effects on editorial deci-
guidelines and style requirements, assigning at least two editors sions in four computer science journals. Journal of Informetrics, 12,
to carry out the preliminary screening of articles, clarifying the 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.002
review process, and accelerating the timeframe, can also reduce Cameron, E. Z., White, A. M., & Gray, M. E. (2016). Solving the pro-
particularism. Improving the academic publishing system in China ductivity and impact puzzle: Do men outperform women, or are
would also involve requiring reviewers to provide specific, con- metrics biased? Bioscience, 66, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/
structive feedback to authors so that they can both improve their biosci/biv173

papers and grow as researchers (Miller & Serzan, 1984). In addi-
, M., Kobayashi, S., McGinn, M. K., Pechar, H., Vekkaila, J., &
Castello
tion, the publishing end of the process should be the job of pro- Wisker, G. (2015). Researcher identity in transition: Signals to
identify and manage spheres of activity in a risk-career. Frontline
fessional publishers, separate from that of the editors, an
Learning Research, 3(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.
arrangement that can both increase the efficiency of the
v3i3.149
reviewing process and reduce the costs of publication.
Chan, J. M. (2008). The developmental stalemate in Chinese commu-
We also insist that a fair, constructive review system must
nication research: Why and how to deal with it. Journalism Quar-
include strict supervision by the academic community and gov- terly, 95, 17 (in Chinese).
ernment. For example, the Institute for Chinese Social Sciences
Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting
Research and Assessment should establish anonymous peer
the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist,
review as a basic criterion for editorial decisions pertaining to the 2, 195–201.
CSSCI journals. The government can improve the situation by
De Oliveira, G. S., Chang, R., Kendall, M. C., Fitzgerald, P. C., &
evaluating the impartiality of the journals’ gatekeeping practices McCarthy, R. J. (2012). Publication bias in the anesthesiology liter-
and providing more financial support for them. There is also a ature. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 114(5), 1042–1048. https://doi.
role for academic associations, which can establish websites for org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182468fc6

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 © 2022 The Authors. www.learned-publishing.org

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
596 X. Jiang & Y. Shi

Durieux, V., & Gevenois, P. (2010). Bibliometric indicators: Quality Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and
measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255, 342–343. particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.09090626 org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401
Fang, Q., Xu, L., & Lian, X. (2008). Peer-review practice and research Luo, Z. (2018). Adhering to the subjectivity of academic journals
for academic journals in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, under the peer review system. Modern Chinese History Studies,
39(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.39.4.417 05, 4–6.
Grace, M. (2004). The role of the scientific editor. British Dental Jour- Matías-Guiu, J., & García-Ramos, R. (2011). Editorial bias in scientific
nal, 197(12), 725–734. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811896 publications. Neurología, 26(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2173-5808(11)70001-3
Horbach, S., & Halffman, W. (2020). Innovating editorial practices:
Academic publishers at work. Research Integrity and Peer Review, Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical
5, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w investigations. The University of Chicago Press.
Hsiehchen, D., & Espinoza, M. (2016). Detecting editorial bias in med- Miller, A. C., & Serzan, S. L. (1984). Criteria for identifying a refereed
ical publishing. Scientometrics, 106(1), 453–456. https://doi.org/ journal. The Journal of Higher Education, 55(6), 673–699. https://
10.1007/s11192-015-1753-9 doi.org/10.2307/1981508

Institute for Chinese Social Sciences Research and Assessment. Moustafa, K. (2015). Is there bias in editorial choice? Yes. Sci-
(2018). Measures for the selection of source journals (collec- entometrics, 105, 2249–2251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
tions) of Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) 015-1617-3
[EB/OL]. https://cssrac.nju.edu.cn/gywm/lxbz/20200102/i64328. Nicholas, D., Jamali, H. R., & Rowlands, I. (2006). On the tips of their
html tongues: Authors and their views on scholarly publishing. Learned
Institute for Chinese Social Sciences Research and Assessment. Publishing, 19(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1087/
(2021). Directory of Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index 095315106777877494
(CSSCI) (2021–2022) Source Journals[EB/OL]. https://cssrac.nju. Parolo, P. D. B., Pan, R. K., Ghosh, R., Huberman, B. A., Kaski, K., &
edu.cn/cpzx/zwshkxywsy/20210425/i198393.html Fortunato, S. (2015). Attention decay in science. Journal of
Jiang X. (2020, May 26). How to support young scholars to publish. Informetrics, 9(4), 734–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.006
China Youth Daily, http://news.cyol.com/app/2020-05/26/content_ Polanyi, M. (2000). The republic of science: Its political and economic
18630986.htm theory. Minerva, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific 1026591624255
publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. Electronic Jour- QSR International [computer software]. (2020). NVivo 12.0. www.
nal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry, 25(3), qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
227–243. Sarigöl, E., Garcia, D., Scholtes, I., & Schweitzer, F. (2017). Quantifying
Li, H., & Lee, C. (2014). Guanxi networks and the gatekeeping prac- the effect of editor-author relations on manuscript handling times.
tices of communication journals in China. Chinese Journal of Com- Scientometrics, 113, 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
munication, 7(4), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750. 017-2309-y
2014.965185 Tam, K. Y. B., & Chen, M. L. (2010). Examining scholarship in China’s
Li, H. T. (2011). Anonymous review as strategic ritual: Examining the academe: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 60, 69–84.
rise of anonymous review among mainland Chinese communica- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9288-8
tion journals. Asian Journal of Communication, 21, 595–612. Vidovich, L., Yang, R., & Currie, J. (2007). Changing accountabilities in
https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2011.609599 higher education as China “opens up” to globalization. Globaliza-
Li, J. (2021, June 2). Pioneering and speaking for the party and the people. tion, Societies and Education, 5, 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Guangming Daily, www.xjnu.edu.cn/2021/0602/c12061a115119/ 14767720601133447
page.htm Wang, J., Halffman, W., & Zwart, H. (2021). The Chinese scientific
Li, Y., & Liu, J. (2021). Relatives are not avoided when talents are publication system: Specific features, specific challenge. Learned
demanded: Do insider characteristics reduce the quality and Publishing, 34, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1326
influence of academic papers? Examples from mainland China. Wang, L. (2020, August 21). A journal declares that it will only con-
Journal of East China Normal University (Education Sciences), sider manuscripts from Double First Class Universities [EB/OL].
39(10), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560. https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-67942-1247248.html
2021.10.007
Wang, S., & Weldon, P. (2006). Chinese academic journals: Quality,
Lin, N. (2001a). Guanxi: Aconceptual analysis. In A.Y. So, N. Lin, & D. issues and solutions. Learned Publishing, 19, 97–105. https://doi.
Poston (Eds.), Chinese triangle of Main land China, Taiwan, and org/10.1087/20110109
HongKong: Comparative institution alanalyses (pp. 153–166). West- Xu, J. L. (2005). The trend for scholarly journals to be work-units,
port, CN: Greenwood Press. administrative and unprofessional [Xueshu qikan de danweihua
Lin, N. (2001b). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. xingzhenghua he feizhuanyehua]. Xinhua Digest, 4, 127–128
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [in Chinese].
Liu, J. (2015). Research into and analysis of the phenomenon of dis- Zhang, J. (2018). Evaluating Chinese legal scholarship in journals:
crimination against young scholars’ contributions in academic Are journal rankings and elite law journals representing the best
journals. China Youth Study, 04, 92–95. https://doi.org/10.19633/ quality? Tilburg Law Review, 23(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.
j.cnki.11-2579/d.2015.04.017 5334/tilr.2

www.learned-publishing.org © 2022 The Authors. Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.
 17414857, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1486 by Jing Zhou - University Of British Columbia , Wiley Online Library on [21/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Editorial bias in top-tier education journals 597

Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., Yang, W., Kirkland, D., Han, X., & Zhang, J. Zhong, W., & Wen, F. (2022). Ten contradictions and problems faced
(2008). A comparative study of educational research in China and by social science journals at present: External pressure and inter-
the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 1–17. nal responses of social science journals. Journal of Capital Normal
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790701849826 University, 02, 1–14.
Zhong, W. (2021, August 4). Editorial review and the future of young Zhu, H. (2021). Home country bias in academic publishing: A case
scholars. The Beijing News. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id= study of the New England journal of medicine. Learned Publishing,
1707133944842982021&wfr=spider&for=pc 34(1), 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1404

Learned Publishing 2022; 35: 585–597 © 2022 The Authors. www.learned-publishing.org

Learned Publishing © 2022 ALPSP.