Introduction

China has emerged as a prominent contributor to global science, accounting for 23% of worldwide peer-reviewed science and engineering publications, surpassing the USA (16%), India (5%), Germany (4%), the UK (4%), and Japan (3%) (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2022). The impacts of Chinese publications, as measured by citations, have also grown significantly. From 2000 to 2018, the index of highly cited articles for China increased from 0.4 to 1.2, equivalent to that of the European Union (1.3) but still below the US (1.8) (NSF, 2022). However, China’s humanities and social sciences (HSS) research has remained largely invisible to the world. In 2018, China contributed only 5% of the articles published in journals in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), compared to the USA (28%) and the UK (10%) (Zhang et al., 2021).

In response, the internationalization of HSS research in China has been a priority for both the Chinese government and universities in recent years. This strategy is not only aimed at importing Western knowledge and theories but also exporting Chinese research to the world and enhancing China’s influence in the international academic community (Xu, 2021). As China has become an economic superpower, the pursuit of soft power projection has become a key element of the internationalization of HSS research (Zheng & Wu, 2022). Chinese universities have responded to this strategy by introducing returnee scholars with overseas Ph.D. qualifications and incentivizing international publications with monetary and career-related benefits (Xu, 2020; Zheng & Wu, 2022).

As a result of these efforts, the past two decades have witnessed significant growth in publications in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals contributed by Chinese scholars (Zhang et al., 2021). Previous research has focused on China’s policies on the internationalization of HSS research and how institutions and academics respond to these policies (e.g., Lu, 2022; Xu, 2021; Xu et al., 2021; Zheng & Wu, 2022). For instance, studies have highlighted the different rationales for the internationalization of HSS research at different levels, with a soft power-related rationale at the national level, and pragmatic rationales at the level of institutions and individual academics (Xu, 2021; Zheng & Wu, 2022). Institutions have highlighted SSCI publications as top priority for improving their rankings (Zheng & Wu, 2022). Meeting the requirements of the university evaluation system has been reported as the dominant motivation for Chinese academics to publish internationally (Jiang et al., 2017; Lu, 2022).

This study aims to understand the characteristics and patterns of international publications by Chinese scholars in the field of higher education research. Although prior research has investigated the policies and the process of international publications, this study focuses on the output end of knowledge production. Different from prior bibliometric analyses that intend to assess the current status of internationalization of Chinese social sciences research (Liu et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021), this study takes the field of higher education research as a case and conducts a comprehensive analysis of the publications in three leading higher education journals by Chinese authors. More specifically, we address the following research questions: (1) What are the characteristics of the published articles by China-affiliated scholars in the three journals? (2) Who is actively participating in international publications in China? (3) How do the published articles by Chinese scholars perform in terms of research impacts compared to other articles in the same journal?

Answering these questions will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the contributions and impacts of Chinese scholars to the field of higher education research and provide insights into the complex dynamics of global academic publishing. As China continues to expand its soft power influence, it is critical to understand the role that international publications in HSS research play in this process and how Chinese scholars are contributing to the global knowledge production.

Literature review

The field of higher education research

Higher education emerged as a field of study in the 1960s to address the need for data and interpretation for effective management and governance (Altbach, 2014). The field continued to grow during the mid-twentieth century, fueled by the increasing size and complexity of universities and global enrollment growth. The number of published articles has been steadily growing over the last few decades but saw exponential growth 2005 onwards (Vlegels & Huisman, 2021).

As an interdisciplinary, object- and problem-related field of scholarship and study, higher education research displays a fragmented nature (Kehm, 2015). Previous research has revealed a clear division between policy-based and learning and teaching approaches (Horta & Jung, 2014; Tight, 2003). The policy-based studies cover topics such as quality, system policy, institutional management, academic work, knowledge and research, and internationalization. In contrast, the teaching and learning approach includes topics such as teaching and learning, course design, and student experience. (Horta & Jung, 2014). Research suggests a lack of communication and collaboration between these two communities (Horta & Jung, 2014; Kim et al., 2017). Second, research into higher education has been conducted by scholars from various backgrounds, such as professors who solely focus on higher education research, as well as researchers associated with other disciplines (e.g., sociology of education) who occasionally carry out research in the field of higher education (Kehm, 2015).

Third, the research themes of higher education studies vary among countries. Kim et al. (2017) examined the publications in international journals by researchers from China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Malaysia from 1980 to 2013. Their analyses indicated that Hong Kong’s research has typically prioritized the teaching and learning approach, whereas China and Japan have focused more on the policy-based approach. Malaysia underwent a significant change in its research focus around the mid-2000s, transitioning from the teaching and learning approach to the policy-based approach. Scott (2000) outlined the differences of higher education research in Europe and the USA. He noted that European higher education research places a strong emphasis on policy, particularly at the macro-level. In contrast, American higher education research tends to have a greater focus on practice, specially addressing issues at the meso- and micro-level. Given the close links between higher education research and policy making and practice (Kehm, 2015), the differences in the research themes across countries reflect the unique challenges encountered by national higher education systems globally.

Fourth, the level of international collaboration within higher education research remains relatively low. Tight’s (2007) analysis revealed a remarkable division between the North American community and the rest of the world. Most North American journals are focused on national issues and are primarily authored by America-based researchers. Based on an analysis of publications from 33 core higher education journals indexed in Scopus from 1996 to 2018, Akbaritabar and Barbato (2021) discovered that 90% of the publications were authored by institutions within a single country, while only 10% were authored by institutions from two or more countries. In their analysis of the published articles in Higher Education from 1972 to 2022, Guzmán-Valenzuela et al. (2022) showed that 44.5% of articles had a single author, 44.6% were authored within a single country, and only 10.9% were international collaborative articles.

Finally, the field of higher education exhibits significant imbalances. In their analysis of the co-authorship networks within higher education research, Vlegels and Huisman (2021) identified a strong core-periphery structure in recent years. A dense core comprising well-connected author clusters accounts for most of the connection between authors, whereas a relatively large periphery of authors struggles to connect with any of these core authors. Although Vlegels and Huisman did not provide the distribution of the core authors’ country affiliations, research suggests that Western scholars have dominated the field. According to Kwiek’s (2021) analysis of six prestigious higher education journals, affiliations from the USA, Australia, and the UK comprised 63.1% of all affiliations, highlighting the hegemonic position of these three major contributors in the field of higher education research.

Higher education research in China

Higher education emerged as a research field in China during the 1980s. The first research institute of higher education was established at Xiamen University in 1978. The institute offered its first master program in higher education in 1984 followed by the first doctoral program in 1986 (Wang, 2010). The China Association of Higher Education (CAHE) was founded in 1983. The CAHE presently has 92 institutional members, incorporating 28 provincial higher education associations, 13 branch associations, and 51 sub-associations across various professional fields. Footnote 1At the same time, journals in higher education were launched, such as The Journal of Higher Education in 1980, Peking University Education Review in 1985, and China Higher Education Research in 1986. These journals have grown to be prestigious journals in higher education studies. Additionally, around 200 research institutes of higher education were founded in colleges and universities (Chen & Hu, 2012). Originally, these institutes were centered on consulting and supporting university leadership and institutional development, but numerous institutes have broadened their scope, upgrading to school of education in the twenty-first century, such as the Graduate School of Education at Peking University and the Institute of Education at Xiamen University).

The 1990s saw significant developments in higher education research in China (Wang, 2010), and a decade of major transformations in Chinese higher education, including unprecedented enrollment expansion, cost-sharing policies, and the launch of national projects aimed at building world-class universities (i.e., Project 211 and Project 985). These changes have further accelerated growth in the field of higher education. An increasing interest in higher education research coincided with the evolving landscape and context of Chinese higher education (Wang, 2010). By the 1990s, over 800 higher education research institutes were operational, employing more than 3000 full-time researchers. Additionally, four doctoral programs and 23 master’s programs with a specialization in higher education were offered (Wang & Liu, 2014). The number of published articles on higher education rose from around 4300 during the period of 1980–1989 to over 17,000 between 1990 and 1999 (Chen & Hu, 2012).

As the Chinese higher education system transitioned from an elite to a mass system in the early twenty-first century, a range of challenges and issues arose, including university governance, quality assurance, and graduate employment. These problems have triggered great scholarly attention in the arena of research related to higher education, with the objective of addressing the practical challenges and urgent policy needs (Wang, 2010; Wang & Liu, 2014). Due to the restructuring and mergers of higher education institutions, the number of higher education research institutes decreased to around 400 in the early 2000s. However, the role of these institutes has become more diversified, including teaching, research, quality assurance and consultation services (Wang & Liu, 2014). One characteristics of the higher education research in China is what Chen and Hu (2012) refer to as the “outward-looking” perspective (p. 662). This characteristic is illustrated by an extensive body of cross-national comparative studies and a notable increase in international references (especially English language), cited in higher education articles published in prominent Chinese-language journals. Like many other HSS disciplines, higher education research has become increasingly internationalized over the years. Internationalization has become an important strategy for China to elevate the quality and reach of its HSS research by adopting international standards and engaging in global academic exchanges (Xu et al., 2021; Zheng & Wu, 2022)

Higher education research in China has grown rapidly over the past four decades and has established itself as an independent and celebrated field of study with a large and thriving research community. Moreover, it has played a vital role in national policymaking and university administration (Wang & Liu, 2014). Nevertheless, in terms of international influence, China’s higher education research is mostly unnoticed by the world. Between 2008 and 2017, China contributed only 4.2% of the publications in ten core higher education journals within the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) database (Li & Li, 2018). While several studies have highlighted the growing presence of Chinese authors in international higher education journals (e.g., Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2022; Kwiek, 2021), these studies often focus on the overall distribution of authors’ country affiliation, bypassing the unique nuances within individual countries. There is a lack of systematic evidence concerning China’s growing contribution to international higher education journals, as well as a limited understanding of the factors driving this growth. This study aims to address these gaps by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the publications in three leading international higher education journals. The findings will be discussed in line with a theoretical framework that combines the center-periphery model and an agency perspective.

Theoretical framework

This study is anchored in Wallerstein’s (2004) world-systems theory and the center-periphery model, which provide a useful lens to understand the disparities in global knowledge production. The theory bifurcates the world into three major zones: the core (e.g., USA, Japan, and western Europe), the semi-periphery (e.g., China, Brazil and South Africa), and the periphery (e.g., many countries in Africa and Southeast Asia). The center-periphery model describes the relationship between the core and the periphery as a hierarchical one, in which the core countries exercise dominance and exploit the periphery countries for resources, labor, and markets. Wallsrstein’s theorization offers insights into the inequality within the global economic and political systems, thereby shedding light on the unequal distribution of knowledge production. As Olechnicka et al. (2019) posited, “the world of science reproduces the global structure of center and periphery……New ideas are generated predominantly in the center and then imitated in the periphery” (p. 102). The influence of the center is particularly prominent in the realm of social science research, where knowledge is intimately tied to local contexts and is suffused with values and ideologies (Hayhoe, 1993).

Alatas (2000) introduced the theory of academic dependency to underscore the global disparities in labor division within the social sciences. Academic dependency is defined as “a condition in which the social sciences of certain countries are conditioned by the development and growth of the social sciences of other countries to which the former is subjected” (Alatas, 2000, p. 603). Social scientists in the periphery regions rely on their colleagues at the center on both intellectual resources (e.g., research agenda, theoretical perspectives and methods) and recognition (e.g., rankings, awards, and academic journals) (Alatas, 2022).

The center-periphery perspective, however, has encountered criticism for neglecting the autonomy and agency of nations and individuals (Marginson & Xu, 2023). China’s rise as a scientific superpower challenges the traditional flow of knowledge and proves that “transfer from periphery to semi-periphery, or even to the core, is possible” (Olechnickaet al., p. 105). Although world-system theory and academic dependency theory provide useful frameworks for understanding the global structure of knowledge production, this study also recognizes the agency of actors—including the Chinese government, institutions, and academics—in shaping the internationalization of social sciences research (Xu, 2020, 2021). The implementation of the “going out” strategy by the Chinese government exemplifies its agency in elevating the global status of Chinese social sciences research. The evolution of contemporary Chinese HSS research commenced from learning from the West, reflecting the reality that the modern HSS disciplines in China were built on Western ideology, cultures and sociopolitical ideas (Yang et al., 2019). This “learner’s attitude” began to shift in the early 2000s (Xu, 2021). The government, discontented with the one-directional “bringing in” approach and driven by a political desire to promote China’s soft power, adopted the “going out” strategy, urging Chinese scholars to disseminate their research globally and amplify their influence (Xu, 2021; Zheng & Wu, 2022).

Chinese universities have actively embraced the “going out” strategy. Many universities have introduced incentive schemes to boost international publications through monetary and non-monetary benefits (Xu et al., 2021). Some institutions have launched talent programs targeting young scholars with overseas doctoral qualifications to produce substantial volumes of SSCI journal articles (Zheng & Wu, 2022). Academics participating in these talent programs are offered favorable salaries and support in exchange for a predetermined number of SSCI journal articles within a specified time (Jiang et al., 2017). Additionally, many first-tier universities have implemented the tenure-track system in recent years, which has led to a fiercely competitive culture focused on constant publication (Poole & Xu, 2022; Si, 2023). Individual academics also exert agency by prioritizing international publications to meet university evaluation system requirements (Jiang et al., 2017; Lu, 2022). Confronting the linguistic barrier to international publication, Chinese academics have adopted strategies such as engaging international co-authors and utilizing professional proofreading services (Jiang et al., 2017). In conclusion, despite occupying a disadvantaged position in the center-periphery structure of knowledge production, China’s HSS system harnesses its agency to not only survive but thrive within this system. Accordingly, this study devotes particular attention to the agency of Chinese actors.

Methods and data

Six journals are widely considered as the most prestigious generic journals in the field of higher education research, namely Higher Education (HE), Studies in Higher Education (SHE), Higher Education Research and Development (HERD), the Journal of Higher Education (JHE), Research in Higher Education (ResHE), and the Review of Higher Education (RevHE) (Kwiek, 2021; Tight, 2018). The three American journals (i.e., JHE, ResHE, and RevHE) are mostly US-focused and do not often publish international research. According to Kwiek (2021), the share of US author affiliations was about 95–97% and the figure was 85.4% for ResHE during 1996–2018. Given the purpose of this study, we excluded the three American journals and focused on the three more internationalized higher education journals, namely, HE, SHE, and HERD, and analyzed papers published in these three journals from 2000 to 2022. The reason we prioritized “generic” journals over “topic-specific” journals (Tight, 2018) was that generic journals have a broader scope and tend to publish a wider range of topics, which can provide a more comprehensive view of the contributions by Chinese scholars to the field of higher education research. Additionally, generic journals are often more widely read and cited by scholars across multiple disciplines, which can help us better understand the research impacts of publications by Chinese scholars.

The data were retrieved from Scopus in June 2023. All the documents published in HE, SHE, and HERD between 2000 and 2022 were retrieved. We then restricted the documents in terms of publication stage (final stage only) and publication type (article only). The total number of documents identified in these three journals were 1894, 1929, and 1422 respectively. In the next steps, we constructed two datasets for each journal: The “China” dataset included articles that had at least one author having affiliation country as mainland China (not including Hong Kong or Macau), while the “All but China” dataset included all the other articles that did not have any authors having affiliation country as mainland China. Each dataset contained titles, authors’ affiliations, keywords, abstracts, number of citations, and other metadata.

The analyses proceeded in three steps. First, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to examine the general characteristics of the publication using the Biblishiny tool. These characteristics included (1) number of publications and temporal trends; (2) authorship (single-authored paper, joint articles within a single country, and international collaboration); (3) collaborating countries; (4) author keywords; and (5) the number of citations. Whenever meaningful, we compared the results from the China dataset with the ones from “All but China” dataset. Second, using information from ORICD and faculty profiles on the institutional websites, we analyzed the characteristics of the Chinese authors of single-authored papers, including their gender, rank, and countries where they obtained their doctoral degree. Finally, we looked at the main topics addressed by the articles contributed by Chinese scholars. We followed Tight’s (2003), Tight (2019) classification of the common themes in the field of higher education research (i.e., teaching and learning, course design, student experience, quality, system policy, institutional management, academic work, and knowledge), plus the theme of “internationalization” (Horta & Jung, 2014). In order to mitigate the influence of subjectivity, two researchers initially coded each article independently and assigned it a theme. Approximately two-thirds of the codes were found to be consistent. Any inconsistencies were subsequently resolved through collaborative effort.

Results

Growth trend and authorship

Table 1 shows the annual number of publications in HE, SHE, and HERD, as well as the number of articles with Chinese affiliations published from 2000 and 2022. The results indicate that Chinese scholars accounted for a small proportion of authorship in these journals, with less than 5% of publications having Chinese affiliations. However, there is a consistent pattern of ongoing growth in the annual number of published articles with Chinese affiliations across the three journals, with a marked increase since 2016. For example, in Higher Education, there were only four published articles by Chinese scholars between 2000 and 2010, with the numbers increasing to 11 from 2011 to 2015, and further to 64 between 2016 and 2022. The annual increases of published articles with Chinese affiliations in HE, averaging 9.9% annually from 2000 to 2022, continues to greatly exceed that of the journal overall, with an annual average of 4.8%. Footnote 2

Table 1 Total number of published articles with Chinese affiliations in the three journals
Full size table

An interesting pattern in the authorship characteristics is that international collaboration is the most prevalent type of publication among the articles with Chinese affiliations in the three journals, followed by domestic collaboration (i.e., within a single country), with single-authored articles being the least frequent type. This contrasts with the dominant pattern among other articles published in the same journals, with international collaboration being the least frequent type. This pattern is consistent across the three journals, as shown in Table 2. For example, in SHE, nearly 54% of the published articles by Chinese scholars are international collaborative articles, compared to only 15.7% among the other articles in the same journal. Domestic collaboration accounted for 28.9% of the published articles by Chinese scholars, compared to 56.7% among other articles. Single-authored articles only accounted for 17.3% among the Chinese publication, compared to 27.6% among other articles. In terms of the collaborating regions and countries, the UK, USA, Hong Kong, and Australia are the top four partners with which Chinese scholars tend to collaborate, as shown in Table 3.

Table 2 Patterns of authorship in the three journals, 2000–2022
Full size table
Table 3 The number of international collaborations by country
Full size table

Prior research suggests that higher education research “has been especially nationally oriented and strongly rooted in higher education systems” (Guzmán-Valenzuela et al., 2022, p. 1188), a feature that was also noted by Tight (2014) in the broad field of education studies. However, our data shows that among the articles published by Chinese scholars in the three journals, international collaborative articles dominated the publication pattern. This distinctive pattern may be related to the challenges faced by Chinese scholars in participating in international publication, such as the language barrier and unfamiliarity of the process of international publication (Jiang et al., 2017). To overcome these challenges, Chinese scholars tend to invite international collaborators to help polish the language and navigate the publication process. As Table 4 shows, Chinese scholars were either the first author or the corresponding author of the published papers in most cases (more than 80%), suggesting a leading role played by Chinese scholars in international collaborations.

Table 4 The role of China-affiliated authors in the publications
Full size table

Research themes

To identify the main topics addressed by the articles with Chinese affiliations, we calculated the most frequent keywords of these articles and compared them with those of other articles in the same journals. The results were shown in Table 5. Focusing on the “All but China” columns, we can see clear differences in the journal’s focus between HE and the other two journals. Besides the general terms such as “higher education” and “university/universities” which are prevalent across all three journals, HE was characterized by the popularity of keywords related to internationalization, including “international students,” “globalization,” and “internationalization/internationalisation.” In contrast, studies published in SHE and HERD tended to focus more on students, with recurring keywords like “doctoral education,” “employability,” “student experience,” and “student engagement.”

Table 5 The most frequent key words of published articles, 2000–2022
Full size table

The most frequent keyword among articles by Chinese scholars is “China,” which is consistent across the three journals. In addition, frequent keywords containing “Chinese” include “Chinese international student,” “Chinese students,” “Chinese universities,” and “Chinese higher education.” Moreover, among the 172 articles, the titles of 109 (63.3%) of articles contain “China” or “Chinese.” These findings suggest that most of the research published by Chinese scholars has a clear geographic focus on China, and they tend to highlight this geographic focus in the titles and keywords of their articles, a pattern that we did not in the other articles published in the same journal. These differences reflect the relatively peripheral position of Chinese scholars in the system of global social sciences knowledge production (Xu, 2021).

We further used Tight’s themes of research in higher education (2003, 2019) plus the theme of “internationalization” (Horta & Jung, 2014) to categorize the 172 articles by Chinese scholars. Table 6 displays the distribution of each theme, and the example article title under each theme. The results indicate that the theme of “internationalization” had the highest number of articles, followed by “teaching and learning” and “system policy.” These three themes accounted for nearly 60% of all the studies by Chinese scholars. When grouping the nine themes into policy-based and teaching and learning approaches, it became clear that 120 (69.8%) articles fell under the policy-based approach, whereas 52 were classified under the teaching and learning approach. These findings align with Kim et al. (2017) in highlighting that China’s international publications on higher education research emphasize the policy-based approach over the teaching and learning-approach. This emphasis on policy can be attributed to the significant educational reforms and strategic initiatives introduced by the Chinese government, such as Project 211, Project 985, and the Double World-Class Project. These large-scale policy measures have shaped the research landscape, drawing scholarly focus toward the exploration of their development, implementation, and impact. Consequently, the predominance of policy over teaching and learning in the body of work by Chinese scholars is a reflection of these overarching national priorities rather than a mere outcome of journal specialization.

Table 6 Themes of published articles by China-affiliated scholars
Full size table

Characteristics of active Chinese scholars

Among the 172 articles with Chinese affiliations published in the three leading higher education journals between 2000-2022, there are 26 single-authored papers contributed by 20 authors. Except for two foreign scholars who held visiting positions at Chinese universities when the articles were published, the rest 18 authors were Chinese scholars who worked full time at Chinese universities. In addition to the single-authored papers, many of these authors have also published collaborative articles in the sample. These authors represent a group of scholars in China who actively participate in international publications.

Table 7 shows the characteristics of these 18 scholars. Two-thirds of the authors were female, and only one-third were male. The majority of authors (13 out of 18, 72%) received their Ph.D. degrees overseas, in countries such as the UK (6), HK (2), and Australia (2). The five authors who received their Ph.D. in China also had international education experiences, such as master’s degree from overseas and visiting scholar experiences overseas. Moreover, most of these authors were at the early stage of their academic career, including one doctoral student, five postdoc researchers, eight assistant professors, and four associate professors. This may be associated with the high publication pressure faced by early-career scholars in China (Huang & Xu, 2020). Three authors were funded by the “Peak Postdoc Program” at East China Normal University. Additionally, two authors were in the “Hundred Talents Program” at Zhejiang University. Despite the differences between these two programs, both programs are highly competitive and well-funded, and have successfully attracted many Chinese students and scholars who have studied or worked in foreign countries to return to China. These findings suggest that these returnee scholars have played a significant role in participating in international publications. Footnote 3

Table 7 Characteristics of authors of single-authored papers
Full size table

Research impacts of articles with Chinese affiliations

One important aspect of this study is to investigate the research impacts of articles published by Chinese scholars in international higher education journals. As shown in Table 8, for articles published between 2013 and 2017 in HE, the average number of citations is 31.13 for articles by Chinese scholars which are lower than those of other articles in HE (35.23), but this difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.67). In the most recent 5 years (2018–2022), the difference in the citation counts between articles by Chinese scholars and all others became smaller (15.61 vs. 17.25, p = 0.66). Similar patterns were found for the other two journals. In SHE, the citation counts for articles by Chinese scholars are even slightly higher than other articles between 2018 and 2022 (16.77 vs. 16.30, p = 0.91). Overall, we have found no significant differences in citation counts between articles authored by Chinese researchers and those published in the same journal by others. These results, to a certain degree, are unsurprising considering that all the published articles have undergone the same rigorous peer-review process implemented by the journal. Irrespective of the authors’ affiliations, all articles benefit from the journal’s esteemed reputation, which invariably influences readers’ perceptions of the research. Nevertheless, given that Chinese researchers in higher education only recently began participating in international publications, the fact that their research has gained a similar impact to that of others can be regarded as a notable achievement.

Table 8 A comparison of the number of citations received by articles with Chinese affiliations and other articles
Full size table

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of China-affiliated articles published in three leading international higher education journals between 2000 and 2022. We have documented a significant increase, especially over the last decade, in the quantity of China-affiliated articles. These findings support previous bibliometric analyses that reported an overall rise of Chinese publications in SSCI journals (Liu et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021). Moreover, Chinese scholars’ research is as influential as their international peers in terms of citation counts. These findings are consistent with prior research across other HSS fields, including economics (Piracha et al., 2022), public administration (Kim et al., 2019), and archelogy (Wei et al., 2023), all of which have noted an increasing presence and influence of Chinese scholars in international journals, even those with high impact factors. These outcomes underscore the agency of Chinese actors to participate actively in international publishing and reflect the success of the policies and reforms implemented by the Chinese government and universities aimed at build world-class universities, such as the talent programs to attract and recruit overseas Chinese academics, the introduction of tenure-track systems that provide faculty with more resources but also great publication pressure, and incentive schemes to boost international publications (Lu, 2022; Poole & Xu, 2022).

However, the agency of Chinese actors is constrained by the center-periphery structure, which is first manifested in the prevalence of international collaborative articles among the Chinese-affiliated international publications. While prior research highlights that international collaborations represent a significant portion of Chinese SSCI publications (Gong & Cheng, 2022; Liu et al., 2015), such collaborations are notably less prevalent in domestic publications. For instance, the international co-authorship rate in journals within the Chinese Social Science Index (CSSCI) was as low as 1.7% between 2002 and 2013 (Liu et al., 2015). This reflects a strategic approach by Chinese scholars, favoring international collaborations primarily when targeting international outlets. This pattern echoes the research of Lovakov and Yudkevich (2021) on the post-Soviet publication landscape for higher education research. They also found that articles written in collaboration with international scholars are practically absent in local journals but overrepresented in prestigious English higher education journals. The reliance of international collaboration to get published in English-language journals speaks to the academic dependency theory and manifests the disadvantaged position of non-Western scholars in international publishing. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Chinese scholars are mostly first and/or corresponding authors in the international collaborative papers, suggesting the leading role of Chinese scholars in the collaborations. Footnote 4

The constrained agency is also reflected in the profiles of active authors’ profiles. Returnee scholars play a crucial role in international publications due to their unique position and experience. This situation reveals the paradox of China’s “going-out” strategy (Xu, 2020, 2021). The aim of the strategy is to disseminate Chinese humanities and social science research and enhance its global impact, an effort to counteract the unidirectional flow of knowledge from the core countries to the periphery. However, this effort may unexpectedly reinforce the dependence on the recognition of the core (Alatas, 2022). To “go out” means the value of research needs to be validated and appreciated by the editors and reviewers, often working in Western universities. In this process, the research of Chinese scholars who share similar training and perspectives with the core are more likely to be selected and awarded. This could potentially limit the diversity of voices and representation of China’s higher education in international publications, which will have further detrimental effects for people interested in Chinese higher education who rely on international outlets as sources for information due to linguistic barriers.

The topics and keywords featured in international publications provide further evidence of the constrained agency of Chinese actors. The prevalence of China/Chinese in the titles and keywords of published articles echoes Ergin and Alkan’s (2019) findings. They noted that scholars from the global South “tend to write in a style that makes heavy use of geographical markers, which reflects their underprivileged position in the global academic world as ‘case’ or ‘data’ producers for northern theory” (p. 259). Moreover, the most common topic in our sample, internationalization, is only marginally explored in Chinese-language higher education journals (Li et al., 2019). This could be a consequence of Chinese scholars intentionally choosing their research topics to align with the preferences of the journals. Alternatively, it could be a result of the selection process by editors and reviewers, who consider the topic’s relevance to a broad audience. In any case, the differences in research topics between English and Chinese journals exemplify the agency of Chinese academics in their publication strategies, which are constrained by their peripheral positions in the global knowledge production network.

Our findings motivate many possible directions for future research. First, future studies can extend our analyses into more SSCI journals in different disciplines to see if these findings hold and to uncover potential differences across disciplines. Second, international collaboration in social sciences is a topic that deserves more attention given its prevalence in China’s international publications. The motivations for international collaboration, the ways to establish collaborations, the division of labor between Chinese and international scholars, and the link between international collaboration and research impact are some examples of research questions worth exploring.

Finally, it is imperative to monitor the potential changes brought about by the recent research evaluation reform in China (Shu et al., 2022). Although previous research policies are effective in boosting international publications, it also yielded inadvertent consequences. Issues of research quality and ethical concerns have surfaced, highlighting the potential pitfalls of a system that heavily incentivizes publication output (Shu et al., 2022). Furthermore, the reliance on SSCI journals, predominately English-language and Western-managed, poses a risk of perpetuating Western hegemony in the intellectual discourse (Xu, 2020). An important aspect of the reform is to emphasize the local relevance of research and to encourage the development of Chinese-language journals. Scholars are expected to publish more in Chinese journals managed by Chinese publishers, potentially altering the landscape of international research collaboration and dissemination. These policy changes mark a departure from the “go out” strategy and represent China’s strive to construct an independent Chinese knowledge system. The translation of this national directive into tangible institutional practices remains to be seen, thus warranting further empirical investigation into its effects on Chinese HSS scholars’ international publishing. The reform might particularly influence academics whose international publishing activities were primarily incentivized by external rewards, as the new policy no longer prioritizes international publications and abandons monetary incentives (Lu, 2022). On the other hand, scholars intrinsically motivated to engage with the global academic community are likely to continue seeking international avenues irrespective of these policy changes (Gao & Guo, 2023). We call for a nuanced examination of how these policy changes will reconcile the international engagement of Chinese HSS researchers with its goal of cultivating a distinctive national research system.