Chinese Academy of Science Journal Ranking System (2015–2023)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work examines China's mainstream journal ranking system from the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), including its history, recent reforms, and current operation, with a particular focus on Physics of Fluids. Using official statistics, this paper analyzes the Physics of Fluids standings in the CAS system from 2015 to 2023. During these years, Physics of Fluids experienced a significant increase in both popularity and impact. Meanwhile, the CAS system underwent substantial reforms, including the newly proposed Advanced edition, which universally boosted fluids journal academic weights in China. Most notably, the brand-new Field Normalized Citation Success Index (期刊超越指数 or FNCSI) offered a new lens through which to assess academic journal impact. Statistics reveal that Physics of Fluids is in a promising position to become the fourth Tier 1 fluids journal to enter any of CAS's Major Categories (after the Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Nuclear Fusion, and Plasma Sources Sciences and Technology) and the first-ever non-review-only Tier 1 fluids journal to enter the Engineering and Technology (工程技术 E&T) Major Category. Finally, this paper suggests several directions for Physics of Fluids to direct future endeavors as it enjoys heightening popularity in China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it