European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology
October 13, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Beyond journal rankings: Reassessing research evaluation in China.
Jiang W, Feng J, Gao C, Zhang T
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
This commentary argues that China's research evaluation must move beyond journal rankings after the CAS ranking was discontinued in 2026.
What was studied
An opinion piece on the end of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Journal Ranking Table and its effects on journal selection, promotion, funding, and early-career researchers.
Key findings
- The CAS ranking was discontinued in 2026 after more than two decades
- Over-reliance on journal labels in graduation, promotion, and funding was a concern
- Proposed frameworks use quantitative indicators cautiously, add expert judgment, and emphasize originality, rigor, and reproducibility
Clinical relevance
Relevant to research policy and career evaluation, not directly to patient care.
Who should care
Limitations
Not a study: no data or systematic methodology, and the perspective is the authors' own.
A call for transparent, stable, multidimensional research assessment during the transition.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Journal Ranking Table was discontinued in 2026, ending more than two decades of operation and ushering China's research evaluation system into a new period of transition. The ranking had long shaped journal selection, the recognition of research output, and the career trajectories of early-career researchers. Yet its growing incorporation into graduation requirements, academic promotion, and funding decisions also intensified concerns over excessive dependence on journal labels. In the post-CAS-ranking era, simply replacing the former system with another hierarchy-or abandoning journal-based indicators altogether-may fail to accommodate the heterogeneity of disciplines and research outputs. Future assessment frameworks should therefore use quantitative indicators more cautiously, integrate expert judgment, and place greater emphasis on originality, methodological rigor, reproducibility, and scientific, clinical, and societal contribution. Equally important, transitional arrangements that are transparent, stable, and predictable will be essential to reduce uncertainty for early-career researchers and to foster a more credible and sustainable research evaluation ecosystem.
DOI
10.1016/j.ejso.2026.112305
PMID
42892021
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed