China’s share of fundamental research publications reaches 32.6%, report says
China’s share of global fundamental research publications reached 32.6 percent in 2024, up from 0.9 percent in 1985, according to the China Daily report on a research report released in Beijing. The same account says China received 20.8 percent of worldwide citations that year, including domestic citations, while its share excluding domestic citations was 9.5 percent.
AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 1 of 2 outletsHow it's made
View timeline · 7 entriesWhat happened
Key facts
- The China Fundamental Research Report (2026) says China’s share of global fundamental research publications increased from 0.9 percent in 1985 to 32.6 percent in 2024 (per chinadaily.com.cn).
- The report says the United States’ share of global fundamental research publications declined from 39.9 percent in 1985 to 18.9 percent in 2024 (per chinadaily.com.cn).
- The report says the European Union’s share of global fundamental research publications fell from 25.8 percent in 1985 to 22.3 percent in 2024 (per chinadaily.com.cn).
- The report says India’s share of global fundamental research publications rose from 2.8 percent in 1985 to 7.3 percent in 2024 (per chinadaily.com.cn).
- China’s spending on fundamental research rose from $16.5 billion in 2018 to $31.9 billion in 2023 (per chinadaily.com.cn).
- The report says the share of researchers with at least one National Natural Science Foundation of China-funded early high-impact publication increased from roughly 50 percent in the 2000 academic career cohort to nearly 80 percent in the 2019 cohort (per chinadaily.com.cn).
The brief
China accounted for 32.6 percent of global fundamental research publications in 2024, compared with 0.9 percent in 1985, according to China Daily’s account of the China Fundamental Research Report (2026). The report was released in Beijing on Tuesday, the outlet said. Universiteit Leiden’s headline also describes the report as mapping global scientific progress.
The report compares publication shares across 25 countries and regions and draws on more than 20 data sources, China Daily reported. It says the United States’ share dropped from 39.9 percent in 1985 to 18.9 percent in 2024. The European Union’s share declined from 25.8 percent to 22.3 percent over the same period, while India’s rose from 2.8 percent to 7.3 percent.
Publication share and citation share are distinct measures in the report. China accounted for 20.8 percent of citations received worldwide in 2024 when domestic citations were included, against 24.4 percent for the United States, according to China Daily.
When domestic citations were excluded, China’s share of cross-country citations was 9.5 percent and the U.S. share was 24.9 percent. The report also tracks funding and researchers’ publication records. China’s spending on fundamental research increased from $16.5 billion in 2018 to $31.9 billion in 2023, the outlet reported.
Separately, the report says the proportion of researchers with at least one early high-impact publication funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China was roughly 50 percent for the 2000 academic career cohort and nearly 80 percent for the 2019 cohort.
China Daily identifies the report’s coordinator as the NSFC-Wuhan University Observatory for Global Fundamental Research, with support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
The figures presented in the account therefore cover several different indicators: publication output, citation shares, research spending and the prevalence of funded early high-impact publications.
The citation comparison changes substantially when domestic citations are removed, while the publication-share figures describe each entity’s portion of worldwide fundamental research publications. The account presents the changes over 1985–2024 as long-term shifts, alongside spending figures that run through 2023.
Its reported numbers show China with the largest publication share among the listed entities in 2024, while the United States had the larger citation share both including domestic citations and when those citations were excluded. The distinction between producing publications and receiving citations is central to reading the report’s comparisons.
Why it matters
- China’s reported publication share reached 32.6 percent in 2024, compared with 18.9 percent for the United States and 22.3 percent for the European Union.
- The citation measure gives a different comparison: China had 20.8 percent of worldwide citations including domestic citations, but 9.5 percent of cross-country citations excluding them; the corresponding U.S. figures were 24.4 percent and 24.9 percent.
- China’s fundamental research spending rose from $16.5 billion in 2018 to $31.9 billion in 2023, a documented measure of resources devoted to the field.
- The report links National Natural Science Foundation of China-funded early high-impact publications to researchers’ career cohorts, with the reported share rising from roughly 50 percent for the 2000 cohort to nearly 80 percent for the 2019 cohort.
What to watch next
- Whether the report’s publication-share comparisons are updated beyond 2024.
- Whether subsequent figures show how China’s cross-country citation share changes from the reported 9.5 percent in 2024.
- Whether later spending figures extend the reported China fundamental research investment series beyond 2023.
- Whether future cohort figures extend the reported comparison beyond the 2019 academic career cohort.
How it's being covered
Coverage analysisShow details2 source articles · 2 unique outletsOutlet political mix: Not enough rated outletsWhere the outlets are based: Europe 50% · Asia 50%
- Coverage is currently limited to 2 outlets.
How outlets' accounts compare
Timeline
Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.- The Science Citation Index, launched by Eugene Garfield in 1964, helped establish citation-indexed journals as a widely used basis for tracking research output.Background · from our historical context
- At the National Science Conference in March 1978, Deng Xiaoping described science and technology as productive forces, and the government began restoring research institutions and scientific training.Background · from our historical context
- In March 1985, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party issued its decision on reforming the science-and-technology management system, encouraging closer links between research and economic development.Background · from our historical context
- The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) was established in February 1986 to allocate competitive grants for basic research.Background · from our historical context
- In 1997, the Web of Science platform brought citation databases into a searchable online system, making publication and citation comparisons across countries more accessible to researchers and policymakers.Background · from our historical context
- China’s 14th Five-Year Plan set a target of raising basic research to more than 8 percent of national research-and-development spending.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
- Xi Jinping called for stronger basic research and original innovation at the 20th Communist Party Congress.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
How we got here
China’s 2021–25 14th Five-Year Plan set a target of raising basic research to more than 8 percent of national research-and-development spending, placing foundational science among the country’s formal planning priorities.
At the 20th Communist Party Congress in October 2022, President Xi Jinping called for stronger basic research and original innovation, while the State Council’s 2023 action plan again emphasized sustained support for basic research. The institutional framework for that support took shape after the Cultural Revolution.
Original sources
1 of 2 articles · Asia · Show allEvery story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources
Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.