International publications that reach the global academic benchmark should be given a status similar to that of core Chinese journals.

 

As scholars in the field of Chinese humanities develop closer ties with their counterparts in the academic communities of Europe, America, Japan and South Korea, more researchers have begun to publish works in outside of their native language in foreign journals of these regions.

 

In light of this trend, it is vital to integrate the evaluation system of international journals with that of domestic journals to maintain the fairness of academic evaluation in China and ensure that scientific research on the humanities stays on the right track.

 

At present, scientific research institutions in China are using two conflicting approaches. One is to regard the status of publications in languages other than Chinese as equal to or even higher than their Chinese counterparts, and the other is to exclude them from the domestic evaluation system and calculation of academic achievements altogether.

 

In essence, the two contradictory attitudes, however, are telling the same truth, which is a refusal to properly measure and evaluate the publications in other languages. The primary cause for this is that it is hard to adopt a uniform standard due to various styles. Nevertheless, it is still possible and necessary to measure and evaluate the efforts of Chinese scholars who publish papers in other languages.

 

International publications that reach the global academic benchmark should be given a status similar to that of core Chinese journals. However, it should be noted that not all international publications are of great academic value.

 

Moreover, they are aimed at communicating with academic communities in other countries, so they cannot be substituted for the function of Chinese academic journals, which mainly serve Chinese readers. Thus, it is neither necessary to have excessive esteem for international publications nor suitable to place them in a position far higher than the top-level Chinese journals.

 

Teaching and scientific research institutes with certain conditions should set aside preconceptions about the international publications, directly evaluate their content and academic value, and grant them an appropriate status within the evaluation system, which is undoubtedly the most reasonable and responsible way to assess publications by Chinese scholars in nonnative languages.

 

But other institutions, limited by their own academic influence or knowledge of other languages, can refer to top-level journals at home in terms of workload calculations and measurement of academic contribution to help excellent publications that are not in Chinese gain exposure to evaluation by the international academy.

 

In short, Chinese scholars’ academic works, regardless of language or where they are published, represent the contribution of the Chinese academic community and ought to be included into the evaluation system. Given the reality that the measurement of scientific research offers significant guidance, the circle of humanities should be open and inclusive in establishing an objective and impartial evaluation system on an equal footing in order to inspire the enthusiasm of scholars in fields like literature, history and philosophy and encourage peers to write and publish more highquality international academic works.

 

This also can accelerate the globalization of humanistic studies in China and enhance the status and influence of Chinese academic achievements around the world.

 

Lü Houliang is from the Institute of World History at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 665, November 5, 2014                                                 

Translated by Ren Jingyun

Revised by Justin Ward