Journal-tiering systems as institutional devices in research evaluation: CAS, JCR, and rule-based governance in Chinese universities

Abstract

Journal-tiering systems can serve at least three distinct purposes: providing information about publication channels, offering formative guidance on where to publish, and supplying summative rules for evaluating completed research. This article examines how two influential citation-based systems, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) tiers and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) quartiles, are embedded in formal university policy texts in China and what evaluative functions they perform once institutionalised. Drawing on document- and clause-level content analysis of 29 publicly traceable policy documents, the study shows that JCR quartiles are used most visibly in procedural threshold rules, whereas CAS tiers appear more often in reward conversion, performance scoring, workload allocation, and some degree-related standards. Parallel CAS–JCR arrangements are concentrated in graded recognition frameworks. A second reading of non-quartile documents shows that removing explicit quartiles does not necessarily produce qualitative article-level assessment: journal-level governance may persist through internal catalogues and core-journal categories whose construction is not always disclosed. In the context of the discontinuation of CAS updates, the evidence supports a diagnosis of structural exposure rather than a claim of completed migration to JCR or another list. The article contributes a functional framework for distinguishing informational, formative, and determinative uses of journal-tiering systems and argues that reform should address the institutional consequences attached to journal categories, not merely substitute one classificatory carrier for another.