Inconsistencies between journal policies and editors in China

This study has cooperated with the Chinese administrative supervisor and representative editors to tackle the inconsistencies shown through the interactions between the governmental side (i.e. the investigator) and the editorial side (i.e. the respondents). The analysis of the questionnaire and interview materials obtained from the government-funded survey project addressed the two-sided problem: what is the mechanism involved between the editors' roles and the policy environment in the Chinese academic publishing system? The study aims to understand the relationship between the editors and Chinese academic publishing processes. To address this problem, this paper draws on neutral party field research to observe the intentions of different parties involved when managing and participating in this project. The data of the project was represented in a neutral manner, where editorial feedback, political considerations, and other participation responses were collected and analyzed. These valuable secondary data helped to find the key inconsistencies between the role of the editor and the academic system and its policy system. Our findings highlighted that financial, professional, and procedural problems are the inconsistencies that were largely shaped by exchange (cultural and political) capitals, working values, and the playing rules within the Chinese publishing field. The field research therefore prioritizes social interests (i.e. social capital) over economic benefits. Based on our observation in the study, we suggest the construction of a resource exchange model that delineates Chinese academic publishing efficiency. This proposed model emphasizes its cultural and political intervention within the Chinese academic publishing industry.