A Comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and inter-journal citation relations

The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analysed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level and the institutional level (i.e., university journals versus journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index. The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones. However, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.

💡 Research Summary

The paper conducts a systematic comparison of journal hierarchies and inter‑journal citation patterns between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) and the Science Citation Index (SCI) for Chinese‑language journals. The authors adopt three analytical lenses: (1) the database level, where they assess overall citation volume, network density, and average link strength; (2) the specialty level, where they disaggregate by scientific fields (natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, humanities) to examine field‑specific citation behaviours; and (3) the institutional level, contrasting journals published by universities with those issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

At the database level, the CSTPCD exhibits an order‑of‑magnitude lower citation activity than the SCI. The total number of journal‑to‑journal citation relations in CSTPCD is roughly one‑tenth of that in SCI, and the resulting citation network is sparse, indicating limited connectivity among domestic journals and weak links to the international literature. This paucity reflects the domestic orientation of CSTPCD, which primarily indexes Chinese‑language periodicals and therefore lacks the breadth of coverage that characterises the SCI.

When the analysis moves to the specialty level, clear disciplinary differences emerge. Natural‑science and engineering journals in CSTPCD show a relatively higher propensity to cite international journals, suggesting that researchers in these fields are more attuned to global research fronts. In contrast, social‑science and humanities journals overwhelmingly cite domestic sources, revealing a more insular citation culture that may be driven by language barriers, differing research agendas, or the limited availability of comparable international outlets. Moreover, high‑impact Chinese journals—identified by their position in the citation hierarchy—tend to cite foreign journals more frequently than lower‑impact counterparts, yet they receive far fewer citations from those same foreign journals. This asymmetry underscores a visibility gap: Chinese journals are eager to engage with the international literature, but the reciprocal recognition from the global community remains modest.

The institutional comparison yields the most striking results. CAS‑affiliated journals outperform university‑published journals on virtually every metric: they have higher average citation counts, greater inbound citations from SCI‑indexed international journals, and occupy more central positions in the combined citation network (as measured by betweenness centrality, clustering coefficient, and PageRank). The superior performance of CAS journals likely stems from better research funding, more rigorous editorial standards, and stronger existing collaborations with foreign scholars. Consequently, CAS journals serve as relatively effective bridges between the domestic Chinese research ecosystem and the worldwide scientific discourse, whereas university journals function more as peripheral nodes.

Methodologically, the study employs network‑analytic tools to visualize citation flows and quantify structural properties. By mapping citation ties, the authors reveal that CSTPCD journals form loosely connected clusters with limited cross‑cluster bridges, while the SCI network displays a dense, highly interwoven structure. The quantitative disparity in network density and centrality measures provides empirical evidence for the claim that Chinese journals, especially those outside the CAS system, are marginal in the global citation landscape.

The authors conclude with several policy implications. To enhance the international visibility of Chinese journals, they recommend (a) expanding English abstracts and full‑text availability, (b) fostering joint editorial ventures and co‑publication agreements with established international journals, (c) incentivizing high‑quality research to be submitted to SCI‑indexed venues, and (d) reforming evaluation criteria to recognize and reward cross‑border citation practices. By emulating the successful practices of CAS journals—such as investing in editorial infrastructure and cultivating international collaborations—university journals could improve their standing and integrate more fully into the global knowledge network.

Overall, the paper provides a rigorous, data‑driven portrait of the structural gaps between CSTPCD and SCI, highlighting both disciplinary nuances and institutional disparities. Its findings offer a clear roadmap for Chinese scholarly publishing to bridge the current citation divide and achieve greater integration with the worldwide scientific community.