Who Will Be the Next “NC” After Nature Communications Is Flagged?

Policy background

On 14 February 2026 the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced controls on article processing charges (APC) for Nature Communications, Science Advances and Cell Reports. The control limits reimbursement for journals with high APCs and a high proportion of Chinese authors.

Definition of “next NC”

The term has two meanings: (1) the journal that will become the new high‑volume, high‑APC sink for Chinese submissions; (2) the journal that may later be targeted by the same control logic because of a similarly high Chinese‑author share and perceived unreasonable APCs.

Scientific Reports as the most likely successor

Key metrics (2025)

Publisher: Springer Nature (both NC and SR)

Articles published: NC ≈12 000; SR >26 000 (as of August)

Chinese‑author share: NC 28 %–36 %; SR 38 %

APC per article: NC $7 350; SR $2 690

Estimated Chinese APC outflow 2025: NC ≈¥130 million (first half); SR ≈¥200 million (full year)

Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) journal ranking: NC 1‑zone TOP; SR 3‑zone (downgraded from 2‑zone in 2024)

SR is a “mega‑journal” like NC. Although the per‑article fee is lower, the volume is much larger—2025 is projected to exceed 26 000 articles, with Chinese authors contributing over 10 000. At roughly ¥19 000 per article, the total Chinese APC payment to SR approaches ¥20 billion, comparable to the amount previously spent on NC.

SR has never appeared on the CAS warning list, so many manuscripts that would have been submitted to NC or Science Advances are likely to be redirected to SR, which offers relatively lenient peer review, predictable timelines and a legitimate SCI index.

This creates a paradox: controlling NC’s funding may simply shift a larger absolute amount to SR because SR’s lower APC is offset by its much higher volume and higher Chinese‑author proportion.

flowchart LR
    A["NC/Science Advances / Cell Reports control"] --> B["Manuscript overflow"]
    B --> C["Scientific Reports (most likely to absorb)"]
    C --> D["If SR also controlled"]
    D --> E["PLOS ONE / Frontiers"]
    B -.-> F["Domestic NSR etc. (limited capacity)"]

Second‑tier options: PLOS ONE and Frontiers

PLOS ONE

2025 predicted article count: ~30 000

CAS ranking: comprehensive 3‑zone

APC: $2 000–2 300 per article

Characteristics: long‑standing large OA journal, relatively relaxed review, very broad subject coverage

Frontiers series

Hundreds of titles, APC ranging up to $3 295

Some titles support Alipay and WeChat Pay

Chinese‑author share has risen noticeably in several sub‑journals

Both journals share high volume, moderate APCs and relatively friendly review standards, making them natural “spill‑over” venues if SR becomes regulated.

Domestic journal capacity: National Science Review (NSR)

Publisher: Chinese Academy of Sciences (vs. Springer Nature for NC)

Impact factor: NSR 17.1, NC 15.7

Annual article count: NSR ≈260, NC ≈10 000

APC per article: NSR $1 904, NC $6 990

CAS ranking: both 1‑zone TOP

NSR’s APC is a fraction of NC’s, but its annual capacity of about 260 articles is far below the volume that would be displaced from NC. Even diverting ten percent of NC’s submissions would exceed NSR’s capacity, so domestic journals cannot serve as the primary outlet in the short term.

Underlying dilemma

The situation can be framed as either a “whack‑a‑mole” mode—regulating one journal only to see the flow shift to the next—or a “rule‑change” mode that reforms evaluation criteria, strengthens domestic publishing and promotes pre‑print and other new dissemination models.

flowchart TD
    subgraph whackamole ["Whack‑a‑mole mode"]
        W1["Control NC"] --> W2["→ SR"]
        W2 --> W3["Control SR"]
        W3 --> W4["→ PLOS ONE / Frontiers"]
        W4 --> W5["Control again..."]
    end
    subgraph newrules ["Rule‑change mode"]
        R1["Evaluation system reform"] --> R2["Domestic journal development"]
        R2 --> R3["Pre‑print and new formats"]
        R3 --> R4["Diverse publishing choices"]
    end

Outlook

Short‑term : Scientific Reports is the most probable “next NC” because of its large volume, relatively low barrier and shared publisher with NC.

Medium‑term : Domestic journals such as NSR, The Innovation and Research will absorb a modest share of high‑quality submissions, but limited capacity prevents them from becoming the main outlet.

Long‑term : Effective solutions require changing the incentive structure of academic evaluation, building competitive domestic publishing clusters and recognizing pre‑print models, rather than repeatedly banning individual journals.