Search

Incentivizing academic publications in internationally-indexed journals is a current topic of national debate especially in non-anglophone countries. To boost the dissemination of Chinese research results, the central government and higher education institutions had introduced various schemes to encourage international publications. However, a significant policy change took place when the Chinese government recently announced a break with SSCI supremacy conventions in research evaluation systems. Based on semi-structured interviews with five university managers and 30 academics in humanities and social sciences in five universities in China, this study examines the responses of both institution managers and individual scholars to the latest national guidelines. A qualitative analysis shows mixed attitudes among both HSS managers and individual academics towards the policy change: supportive but with doubts about the policy practicality as well as concerns about ensuing pressures to be generated by new evaluation systems. The findings suggest the policy change will not significantly affect HSS academics' pursuit of international publishing in a short term. It will, however, lead to some adjustments in the existing institutional evaluation regulations. The findings can contribute to the understanding of HE policy influence on academics as well as its potential implications for the global trend of anglicized academic publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the impacts of research excellence evaluation entailed in global ranking exercises, a control strategy characteristic of new managerialism, on Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) academics. The enquiry combines the Critical Incidents Technique (CIT) and internet-based discourse analysis, drawing on mass media texts and social media discussions. Our analysis identified three major dilemmas that may be created for Chinese HSS academics by their country's aspirations for world-class universities embedded in its complicated socio-political context. First, a highly centralised system restrains academics' autonomy to decide what to research and where to publish. Second, they are conflicted by the need to simultaneously attend to nationalistic interests and publish internationally. Third, ideological correctness is highly important. These findings invite us to reflect on the profound impact of university ranking exercises as a mode of university governance on HSS academics in many contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We identified and analysed the 147 journals offering open access (OA) among the 2960 scholarly journals indexed by the Chinese National Knowledge Information (CNKI) database in the humanities and social sciences. Data were analysed concerning each journal’s organizer, discipline, publishing cycle, areas, regions or provinces covered, and first date that content was offered free of charge, together with the journal’s website construction, the way full text was accessed, and the time delay in publication. On the basis of the survey results, we identify key challenges and problems associated with OA journals in the humanities and social sciences in China, and we outline development strategies to address these issues, including actively promoting the transition of scholarly journals from print form to OA, speeding up network construction of OA journals, and enhancing the functionality of the OA journals’ websites. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

“斯诺命题”提出了“科学文化”和“文学文化”的矛盾和冲突, 以及“两种文 化”发展中的困境问题。“斯诺命题”在积极意义上涉及提出了人文科学、社会科学 和自然科学之间存在的对象的整体性与既定学科的局部性的矛盾问题, 提出了人文社 会科学“次文化”分裂和分离化倾向的问题。走跨学科之路是破解“斯诺命题”关键 所在, 其中特别要注重解决好学科研究和问题研究的结合、个体研究和团队研究的结 合、学者的个人禀赋发挥、研究的社会导向和环境导向、研究的评价体制和机制优化 等问题。 关键词: 斯诺命题 科学文化 文学文化 人文社会科学 跨学科研究 “Snow’s proposition” points out the contradictions and conflicts between “scientific culture” and “literary culture” and the dilemma of the development of the “two cultures.” In the positive sense, Snow’s proposition concerns the contradictions between the integrity of the research subject and the particularity of established disciplines, as well as the trend toward division and isolation in subdivisions of the humanities and social sciences. The key to solving Snow’s proposition is to take an inter-disciplinary path that pays particular attention to combining discipline-centered with issue-centered research and individual work with teamwork, giving full play to individual endowment, social orientation and environmental orientation and to the optimization of evaluation systems and mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]