Strategic determinants of journal selection among Chinese biomedical researchers

Background Academic publishing is a strategic arena where journal choice balances impact, reputation, and timelines under intense “publish or perish” pressure. In China’s metric-driven but reforming system, how biomedical researchers prioritize and rank journals remains unclear. This study investigates the determinants influencing journal selection among Chinese biomedical researchers, providing empirical evidence for reforms in research evaluation systems and the strategic development of academic journals. Methods A cross-sectional survey employing a self-designed electronic questionnaire was administered to 152 Chinese biomedical researchers to analyze submission preferences and decision-making drivers quantitatively. Results Descriptive statistics revealed that the respondents were primarily researchers in clinical medicine and biology, with 66.4% holding doctoral degrees. The findings indicate that the journal impact factor (IF) /five-year IF and Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) quartile/Journal Citation Reports (JCR) quartile constitute the primary considerations in submission decisions. Across career stages, junior researchers demonstrate greater reliance on quantifiable metrics (high IF and top-tier categories) than do senior researchers, who prioritize strategic balance between journal reputation and quantitative indicators. With respect to specific journal preferences, high-impact multidisciplinary journals (e.g., Advanced Science ) significantly outperform traditional specialized journals (e.g., Journal of Biological Chemistry ) under current evaluation system pressures. Conclusions This study reveals that within the prevailing academic evaluation framework, “metric-driven mentality” continues to profoundly shape researchers’ journal selection behavior, suggesting implications for both academic publishers’ operational strategies and research evaluation system reforms.