In the rapidly evolving landscape of Chinese higher education, a troubling trend has emerged: an intense focus on quantitative metrics is overshadowing the core academic vision that once defined scholarly pursuit. Publications, citations, h-index scores, journal impact factors, and grant funding have become the primary yardsticks for success, often at the expense of genuine innovation, teaching excellence, and societal impact. This shift, fueled by ambitious national initiatives like the Double First-Class project, has created a "publish or perish" culture that pressures faculty and stifles creativity.
Recent observations from hiring processes at universities in Hong Kong and mainland China reveal the extent of this obsession. Aspiring assistant professors emphasize boosting their citation counts over pioneering new theories or addressing real-world problems. Similarly, senior academics seeking promotion highlight bibliometric data rather than personal intellectual journeys or contributions to their fields. This performative approach reduces complex academic endeavors to simplistic numbers, echoing a broader global issue but amplified in China's competitive environment.
The Evolution of Evaluation Systems
China's higher education evaluation has undergone significant transformations. The Project 211 and Project 985 in the 1990s and 2000s laid the groundwork by funneling resources to elite institutions based on output metrics. The 2015 Double First-Class (Shuang Yiliu) initiative expanded this, selecting 147 universities and hundreds of disciplines for world-class status by 2050, with heavy emphasis on research productivity.
While these programs propelled China to produce over 25 percent of global scientific papers by 2025, critics argue they prioritize quantity over quality. Faculty face up-or-out tenure rules, where failure to meet publication thresholds leads to non-renewal. Administrative tasks, including endless reporting and committee work, consume up to 40 percent of faculty time, leaving less for teaching and original research, according to surveys from mainland universities.
Publish or Perish: Pressures on Young Academics
The "publish or perish" mentality is particularly acute for early-career researchers. In Double First-Class universities like Tsinghua and Peking, young faculty must secure high-impact publications in journals like Nature or Science within five years for tenure. This leads to strategic behaviors such as excessive self-citation or targeting trendy topics over risky, innovative work.
Statistics underscore the strain: Chinese academics publish twice as many papers per capita as global averages, but retraction rates for fraud are among the highest worldwide. Mental health issues, including burnout, affect over 60 percent of young scholars, prompting some institutions to relax up-or-out policies in 2025.
Neglect of Teaching and Broader Impacts
Metrics fixation diverts attention from teaching. Despite reduced formal teaching loads—from 11.8 hours weekly in 2007 to 8.7 in recent years—faculty report effective instruction time dwindling due to admin burdens. Student feedback highlights rote learning over critical thinking, as professors prioritize grant applications.
Societal contributions, like policy advice or public engagement, receive little credit compared to SCI-indexed papers. This misalignment hampers holistic education, vital for China's innovation-driven economy.
Case Studies from Elite Institutions
At Peking University, recent reforms under the Higher Education Powerhouse Forum emphasize classified evaluations, yet metrics linger in promotions. Tsinghua's interdisciplinary centers aim to foster creativity, but funding ties to citation scores persist.
In Hong Kong, where two-thirds of public university faculty hail from mainland China, similar patterns emerge. Job interviews reveal candidates chasing h-indexes over vision, as noted by experts like Bruce Macfarlane in a Times Higher Education commentary.
Reforms Breaking the 'Five Onlys'
Recognizing these pitfalls, China launched the "Breaking the Five Onlys" (Po Wu Wei) policy in 2020, targeting over-reliance on papers, titles, positions, diplomas, and seniority. By 2026, many universities have adopted peer review and qualitative assessments for promotions.
A landmark move: In March 2026, the Chinese Academy of Sciences' National Science Library halted updates to its 22-year-old journal ranking list, signaling reduced JIF dependence. This aligns with global calls like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), though few Chinese institutions have signed on.
The Third Double First-Class Round
Launching in 2026, the third phase of Double First-Class shifts toward interdisciplinary research, elite talent cultivation, and classified development—tailoring metrics to institutional types. Resource allocation will favor quality indicators like patents commercialized and societal impact, per the 15th Five-Year Plan.
Experts predict this could restore balance, with expanded enrollment at top universities by 38,000 students emphasizing practical skills over sheer output.
Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives
Despite progress, cultural inertia persists. Faculty report persistent pressure, with admin roles ballooning. Students and industry call for graduates skilled in application, not just metrics.
International observers note China's output surge but warn of quality gaps. Solutions include diversified evaluations, reduced bureaucracy, and incentives for teaching excellence.
Photo by Rico Flores on Unsplash
Future Outlook: Toward Balanced Excellence
With reforms gaining traction, Chinese higher education stands at a crossroads. By prioritizing vision alongside metrics, universities can cultivate true innovators. Global collaboration and DORA-like adoption could accelerate this shift, positioning China as a leader in sustainable academic progress.
- Implement peer-led qualitative reviews.
- Cap admin time at 20 percent.
- Reward interdisciplinary and public-engagement work.
