Emerging fields such as international relations and area studies tend to be more open to young researchers. Photo: Yang Lanlan/CSST

In today’s academic environment, driven by factors such as the research evaluation system and journal assessment mechanisms, young scholars in the humanities and social sciences are experiencing increasingly acute publication difficulties. On one side are rigid requirements tied to the graduation of master’s and doctoral students, completion of postdoctoral programs, and assessment of early-career faculty. On the other are the limited pages in core journals, long-criticized evaluation practices, and various “implicit thresholds” that further narrow publishing opportunities.

Publication barriers facing young scholars

Liu Ning, a research fellow from the Institute of Literature at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has closely observed shifts in the publishing environment over the past decades in China. She recalled that in the 1980s and 1990s, doctoral students could publish independently in journals such as the Journal of Peking University and Literary Heritage without a supervisor’s co-authorship or restrictions tied to academic rank. Today, such experiences are viewed by young scholars as “unrepeatable legends.”

Liu noted that many journals now explicitly require a supervisor to be listed as the first author before a submission is considered. This shift has become embedded throughout the submission process. The move from a once “threshold-free” environment to today’s model of “supervisor co-authorship combined with title restrictions” highlights increasingly structural barriers for young scholars.

If Liu’s observations offer a macro perspective, the experiences of young scholars themselves illuminate the micro-level realities more vividly. One anonymous early-career researcher reported submitting three manuscripts to CSSCI-indexed journals in recent years, with two accepted—one an invited contribution, the other resubmitted elsewhere after three months of silence. Although the acceptance rate appears reasonable, behind it lay long waits and complex revision processes.

Li Tao, an associate professor from the School of Philosophy at the University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, admitted that publishing became noticeably easier only after his promotion to associate professor. As a lecturer, many of his submissions were ignored entirely, or otherwise rejected by handling editors during the initial screening stage before external review. “Oftentimes, you don’t even know whether a rejection was due to quality or other factors.”

More concerning is the preference some journals show for authors with stronger academic credentials, which further narrows publishing space for young scholars. One young scholar who also works as a journal editor told CSST that to maintain “core journal” status, many publications highly prioritize impact factors, reprint rates, and citation counts, prompting them to solicit work from scholars with prestigious honors or senior titles. This naturally disadvantages young researchers. Rising proportions of invited contributions also compresses the space for unsolicited submissions.

Still, not all journals favor seniority. Many publications demonstrate clear support for young scholars through concrete data. One leading disciplinary journal reported that among its 34 published authors in 2024, 53% were age 35 or below and 18% were between 36 and 45—meaning young scholars accounted for 71% of contributors. Authors with associate-senior titles or below made up 66% of the total, including 24% who were master’s or doctoral students. “What we value are academic standards and article quality—the data speaks for itself,” the editorial director affirmed.

Similarly, a core journal in communication studies is widely considered “youth-friendly,” with researchers under 40 contributing nearly half of its published articles. “We place no restrictions on author identity. We don’t require professors or supervisors to be co-authors, nor do we have special rules for young scholars,” the editorial board noted.

Data provided by Ji Jianmin, a professor of editorship of Journal of Henan University (Social Sciences), shows that from 2020 to 2024 the journal published 669 papers, 357 of which were authored by scholars under 40, accounting for 53%. In 2024 alone, the proportion rose to 67.4%.

It is also worth noting that publishing difficulties vary across disciplines. A lecturer in international relations from a university of the “985” project remarked that the field is “relatively friendly” to younger researchers but acknowledged that institutional reputation and disciplinary ranking still influence publication opportunities. “Young faculty from top universities generally face less resistance when submitting manuscripts. Editors might make preliminary judgments on manuscript quality based on the author’s affiliation. It’s not entirely fair, but it’s a reality.”

Systemic issues in academic ecology

The publication challenges facing young scholars stem from a complex interplay among evaluation systems, journal survival logic, disciplinary disparities, and the natural pace of scholarly development.

He Yunfeng, former president of the Journal Press of Shanghai Normal University and editor-in-chief of Theoretical Probes to Labor Issues, argued that the core issue does not lie with young scholars themselves, but with flaws in the journal evaluation system. Prevalent assessment practices stratify authors and score them accordingly, indirectly encouraging journals to publish more articles by “high-profile authors” to boost impact factors and reprint metrics.

In pursuit of higher impact factors, many journals have adopted a strategy of “reducing publication volumes while proactively soliciting contributions from renowned scholars.” Several editors admitted that this approach is a reluctant response to the current evaluation frameworks. Expressing concern over this phenomenon, Liu noted that “relevant authorities have explicitly suggested not using impact factor as the main indicator for journals in the humanities and social sciences, but in reality, it still dominates the operation of most journals.” She argued that such short-cycle, quantitative evaluation models are more suited to the natural sciences and engineering, not for the humanities and social sciences, which requires longer-term accumulation.

Ordinary core journals operate under constant pressure of being “delisted,” prompting editors to favor established scholars. As Zou Xiaodong, an editor of Literature, History and Philosophy, acknowledged, “The current indicator-based evaluation system imposes a ‘life-or-death’ pressure on journals. Once downgraded, the editor-in-chief and the editorial board face enormous pressure.” By contrast, long-established flagship journals, which already enjoy strong reputations, are generally more open to younger contributors.

“Too many monks, too little gruel” is also an undeniable reality: The number of young scholars is rising rapidly, manuscript output is surging, but journal space remains basically fixed, naturally driving down acceptance rates. “Rejection does not necessarily mean one’s work lacks merit. It’s more often a result of the severe ratio limitations,” Zou explained.

Solicitation mechanisms may also create a “Matthew effect” in the distribution of academic resources: Established scholars gain more opportunities, while young researchers risk becoming stuck in a cycle of “few publications-fewer resources-even fewer outputs.”

Opaque review practices add another layer of difficulty. Although most journals claim to employ peer review, “anonymous review” still faces disciplinary barriers in practice. One external reviewer admitted, “Reviewers tend to recommend scholars they are familiar with.” Another young scholar who submitted a cross-disciplinary article was told that its “large cross-disciplinarity might lead to direct rejection.” Such tendencies make it harder for high-quality interdisciplinary work to be fairly evaluated.

Young scholars themselves are not without shortcomings. Ji observed that limited academic training, accumulation, and writing skills can make some manuscripts appear “immature.” Statistics from Journal of Henan University (Social Sciences) suggest this factor accounts for roughly 35% of rejected submissions. Zou further observed that, under assessment pressure, some young scholars resort to “repackaging old topics” to produce papers hastily, resulting in a lack of originality—an internal cause of publishing difficulties.

Other editors, however, argued that younger researchers today often possess stronger academic literacy than their predecessors. “Those born in the 1980s and 1990s typically receive more systematic training and engage deeply with cutting-edge theory,” one editor said. Their main challenges stem more from a hyper-competitive environment that forces them to narrow research topics and, at times, encourages utilitarian strategies that limit their perspectives.

Disciplinary variations also shape the degree of publication difficulty. Emerging fields such as international relations and area studies tend to be more open to young researchers, while traditional disciplines like Marxist theory and historiography are far more competitive. Journals in emerging disciplines focus more on article quality than author credentials, whereas those in traditional fields—due to the limited number of core journals—place greater emphasis on seniority.

Exploring multifaceted, collaborative reforms

Addressing these publication challenges requires systemic reform driven jointly by academia, the journal community, and administrative authorities. Encouragingly, many journals are already experimenting with innovative new practices.

Several core journals have established dedicated platforms to support younger researchers—launching “Young Scholars’ Forums,” establishing youth editorial boards, or publishing special issues for young scholars. Exploration and Free Views has for years hosted the “National Youth Theorists Innovation Award,” easing publication difficulties and enriching its submission pool. Literature, History and Philosophy promotes academic exchange through its “Young Scholars Workshops,” with many recent thematic discussions in the journal originating from these activities.

In its first issue of 2025, Journal of Henan University (Social Sciences) featured a special column titled “Editorial Studies,” organizing a roundtable discussion themed “Author-Friendliness: Editors-in-Chief of Academic Journals in Conversation.” Four editors-in-chief of core journals were invited to contribute, discussing the challenges young scholars face in publishing—an initiative that offers valuable developmental pathways for early-career researchers.

Enhancing transparency in the review process is a key step toward greater fairness in academic publishing. To improve public oversight, He Yunfeng suggested that journals standardize their review procedures, provide constructive feedback to young authors, and publicly disclose key information such as acceptance rates for unsolicited submissions, review timelines, and payment policies.

Liu suggested that journals in the humanities and social sciences adopt the “first author and corresponding author” model—used in the natural sciences and engineering—where the student serves as the first author and the supervisor as the corresponding author. This approach both better reflects the student’s contribution and acknowledges the advisor’s guidance. Importantly, she argued, evaluation systems should grant equal recognition to both roles.