English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social scienceshave not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinesedomestic journals in three subject areas -- political science and marxism,library and information science, and economics -- are compared with theircounterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and lifesciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references tojournal publications than their international counterparts; like theirinternational colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references thannatural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse.Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese socialsciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations thantheir international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established thanpolitical science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese politicalsystem on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political systemare less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, weexplore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policyrecommendations.

A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences