Introduction

Background

Regional differences in the representation of academic journals within major indexing databases reflect broader patterns in research development and scholarly communication. Because journals serve as central channels for knowledge production and dissemination [1], the distribution of indexed titles provides insight into national research ecosystems and institutional capacity. Recent regional analyses have confirmed the strong research presence of East Asian countries, including China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, across Scopus-indexed fields [2]. At the same time, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries represent expanding academic systems that have increased their international visibility and research collaboration in recent years [3].

Both regions have expanded their presence in Scopus over the past two decades [4,5], but they have done so along different developmental trajectories. Language policies influence how journals position themselves for international visibility, and multilingual publishing practices continue to play an important role in this process [6]. National plans for science and technology journals demonstrate how policy initiatives can shape editorial priorities [7], while publisher-level approaches to open access (OA) vary in scope and intensity, influencing how OA models are implemented across journals [8]. Previous studies have examined East Asian journals using single-year datasets [9] or provided preliminary 10-year descriptive summaries [10]. In contrast, the present analysis employs a decade-long dataset with refined indicators and a comparative statistical design spanning two major Asian regions.

Objectives

This study aims to examine Scopus-indexed journals from 2015 to 2024 by analyzing regional growth, OA adoption, and publisher dynamics in East Asia and ASEAN. Specifically, it evaluates trends in journal representation, contrasts OA and non-OA distributions, and assesses differences in publisher growth, thereby clarifying how the two regions are positioning themselves within the global scholarly publishing landscape.

Methods

Ethics statement

This bibliometric study relied exclusively on existing databases; therefore, neither institutional review board approval nor informed consent was required.

Study design

This study employed a comparative design to examine growth patterns, quartile distributions, OA adoption, and publisher characteristics among Scopus-indexed journals across ASEAN and East Asian countries between 2015 and 2024.

Data sources/measurement

Journal data were retrieved from the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) on November 1, 2025, covering journals indexed in Scopus from 2015 to 2024 (Dataset 1) [11]. Scopus was selected over Web of Science because of its broader coverage of journals from emerging academic systems in Asia. Countries with fewer than 10 Scopus-indexed journals in 2024 were excluded to minimize instability in percentage calculations and quartile distributions associated with very small national portfolios. This criterion resulted in the inclusion of five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and five East Asian countries (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan). Hong Kong was treated separately from mainland China in accordance with SJR classification. OA status followed SJR definitions: gold OA and subsidized OA journals were classified as OA, whereas hybrid journals were classified as non-OA. Journals were evaluated based on their best quartile position. Publisher names were standardized by removing corporate suffixes while retaining distinct imprints, and multinational publishers were reported according to their country of operation rather than consolidated ownership.

Analysis methods

Growth rates were calculated using the following formula:

(Final value)-(Initial value)(Initial value)×100%

Non-OA journals were identified through an anti-join operation. All analyses were conducted in R ver. 4.3.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Quartile distributions and publisher patterns were examined to identify regional differences. The chi-square test of independence was conducted to assess changes in OA and non-OA distributions between 2015 and 2024 for each region and country (P<0.05). This test was used as a descriptive indicator of distributional change within the observed journal portfolios rather than as an inferential estimate for a broader population.

Results

Scopus-indexed journal growth in ASEAN and East Asia

Between 2015 and 2024, ASEAN and East Asia exhibited noticeably different patterns of Scopus-indexed journal growth, as shown in Table 1, with ASEAN expanding by 105.6%. This expansion was driven primarily by Indonesia’s increase from 42 to 252 journals, together with growth in Thailand and more moderate increases in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. East Asia grew by 37.9%, with China’s rise from 625 to 1,100 journals contrasting with Japan’s decline from 499 to 421. Korea increased by 53.3%, Hong Kong showed substantial growth of 110.7%, and Taiwan grew more modestly at 9.6%. Overall, ASEAN’s expansion was stronger in percentage terms and was more influenced by emerging contributors, whereas East Asia’s change reflected China’s expansion combined with heterogeneous national trajectories among the remaining countries.

OA journal publishing trends

From 2015 to 2024, ASEAN demonstrated a higher growth rate in Scopus-indexed OA journals than East Asia (144.2% vs. 79.6%), although this occurred from a smaller baseline (Table 2). Within ASEAN, Indonesia increased its OA titles from 39 to 186, becoming the region’s largest OA contributor and surpassing Singapore, while Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines also recorded steady gains. ASEAN’s total OA journals rose from 138 to 337 (144.2%), and its non-OA titles increased from 221 to 401 (81.4%). In East Asia, China recorded the largest numerical increase in OA journals, from 120 to 348, followed by Korea’s growth from 124 to 187, whereas Japan and Taiwan exhibited more modest changes. East Asia’s OA total increased from 392 to 704 (79.6%), while non-OA titles rose from 1,081 to 1,327 (22.8%). Taken together, these patterns indicate that ASEAN experienced stronger proportional growth in both OA and non-OA publishing, whereas East Asia, beginning from a larger base, showed more moderate percentage gains.

Table 3 presents the results of the chi-square test comparing the distribution of OA and non-OA journals between 2015 and 2024. Statistically significant distributional differences within the observed journal portfolios were identified for ASEAN overall (P=0.028) and for East Asia (P<0.001), indicating shifts in regional OA representation over time. At the country level, Indonesia showed a significant decrease in the proportion of OA journals (P=0.012), declining from 92.8% (39 out of 42) to 73.8% (186 out of 252). Although OA journals grew substantially (376.9%), non-OA journals expanded far more rapidly (2,100%). The remaining countries did not show statistically significant changes during the study period, indicating relatively stable OA shares. These findings suggest that changes in OA representation were concentrated in specific national contexts rather than occurring uniformly across the two regions.

Journal quartile distribution

Journal quartile distributions from 2015 to 2024 showed marked changes among the major contributors in each region (Table 4). In East Asia, China expanded its Q1 titles substantially, increasing from 44 to 249 (37.6% to 69.9%), whereas Japan’s Q1 count declined from 38 to 32 (32.5% to 9.0%). Japan’s journal portfolio shifted proportionally toward lower quartiles, with increasing representation in Q2 to Q4 categories. Korea increased its Q1 and Q2 titles, although its regional share declined as China’s portfolio expanded. In ASEAN, Indonesia’s transition from 0 to 57 Q1 journals (0% to 45.2%) represented the largest structural change within the region. Over the same period, Singapore nearly doubled its Q1 count from 23 to 52, even as its regional share declined from 76.7% to 41.3%. Changes in upper-quartile representation were therefore driven primarily by China and Japan in East Asia and by Indonesia and Singapore in ASEAN.

Quartile-level growth between 2015 and 2024 revealed contrasting regional trajectories (Table 5). ASEAN’s Q1 journals expanded by 320% (from 30 to 126), exceeding East Asia’s Q1 growth of 204% (from 117 to 356), although from a smaller base. Indonesia’s emergence to 57 Q1 journals and 43 Q2 journals constituted ASEAN’s most pronounced structural shift, whereas Singapore’s Q1 count more than doubled (+126.1%). In East Asia, China drove Q1 expansion with growth of 465.9%, reaching 249 journals, while Japan was the only country to experience declines across all quartiles. Despite substantial differences in scale, both regions displayed more similar Q1 proportions relative to their total quartile-assigned portfolios by 2024.

Publishers’ journal production

Table 6 summarizes growth among the top 10 publishers in ASEAN and East Asian countries between 2015 and 2024, revealing distinct publisher profiles across the two regions. Over this period, ASEAN’s publisher expansion was driven primarily by Indonesian university presses. Universitas Negeri Semarang increased its output by 1,300% (from 1 to 14 journals), Airlangga University entered the index with 12 journals, and the State Islamic University recorded 700% growth (from 1 to 8 journals). Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University expanded by 300% (from 2 to 8 journals), while Malaysian publishers increased output by approximately 60%. In East Asia, the most pronounced growth occurred among Chinese publishers, with KeAi Communications expanding by 425%, the Chinese Medical Journals Publishing House by 156.3%, and AME Publishing Company by 850%, alongside a 46.9% increase for Science China Press. Japanese publishers showed only limited change during the study period. Overall, these patterns indicate that ASEAN’s expansion was driven by emerging Indonesian university presses, whereas East Asia’s growth was led by rapidly expanding Chinese publishing houses.

Discussion

Key findings

The findings indicate that the five ASEAN countries and five East Asian countries expanded their indexed journal output through different structural pathways shaped by distinct national policies. ASEAN’s growth was associated with the rapid emergence of new contributors and university-based publishers, a pattern closely linked to Indonesia’s Science and Technology Index (SINTA) system, which ties journal accreditation and Scopus indexing to institutional performance indicators [12]. In contrast, East Asia’s pattern reflected strategic initiatives within more established research systems, particularly China’s STM Journal Excellence Action Plan (2019–2023), which sought to elevate domestic journals to international standards through an explicit emphasis on achieving Q1 rankings and supporting publishers such as KeAi Communications [13]. These expansion patterns align with national policy strategies rather than uniform regional dynamics.

Publisher-level differences further underscored these dynamics, with ASEAN’s expansion concentrated among emerging academic presses and East Asia’s increases driven largely by major Chinese publishing houses. These structural contrasts are consistent with prior findings that editorial capacity and resource availability shape journal development within indexing systems [14]. The rapid rise of Indonesian university presses and Chinese publishers such as KeAi Communications illustrates how national policies translated into tangible publishing outcomes. Continued monitoring will be necessary to assess how these institutional conditions influence longer-term trajectories in both regions.

Limitations

There are several important limitations to this study. First, the decision to classify hybrid journals as non-OA may lead to an underestimation of OA activity, because hybrid titles include both OA and paywalled articles. SCImago data do not distinguish whether non-OA journals are subscription-based or hybrid, nor do they indicate the extent of article-level OA within hybrid journals. Second, although growth rate calculations are mathematically accurate, they do not capture absolute scale. Large percentage increases originating from small baselines can therefore exaggerate apparent expansion when compared with more moderate growth from larger starting points. Third, newly indexed journals require time to accumulate citations and advance in rankings, meaning that short-term changes in Q1 to Q4 distributions may reflect indexing timelines rather than substantive differences in journal impact or editorial capacity. Lastly, journal quartiles are field-normalized within SJR subject categories; consequently, differences in subject-area composition across countries may influence quartile distributions independently of editorial capacity.

Conclusions

National strategies drive the expansion of indexed journal output through distinct institutional mechanisms. Growth patterns varied substantially across the examined ASEAN and East Asian countries, as illustrated by the role of university-based presses in Indonesia and policy-supported publishers in China. At the same time, these system-level trends complicate efforts to determine whether observed changes reflect genuine journal-level development or strategic adaptation to evolving indexing criteria. Future research incorporating article-level OA data, subject-category–specific analyses, and longitudinal tracking of individual journals will therefore be necessary to disentangle these dynamics.

Notes

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this work.

Data availability

Raw journal data were obtained from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (https://www.scimagojr.com) and are subject to SCImago’s terms of use. The dataset file is available from the Harvard Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DYVPOD.

Dataset 1. The data preparation code and replication instructions for this study.

kcse-392-dataset-1.txt

Supplementary materia

The authors did not provide any supplementary materials for this article.

References

• 1. McCartan P. Journals and the production of knowledge: a publishing perspective. Br J Polit Sci 2010;40:237-48.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123410000062. Article
• 2. Horta H, Mok K. Challenges to research systems, academic research and knowledge production in East Asia: learning from the past to inform future policy. J High Educ Policy Manag 2020;42:119-33.https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2020.1738125. Article
• 3. Sukoco BM, Putra RA, Muqaffi HN, Lutfian MV, Wicaksono H. Comparative study of ASEAN research productivity. Sage Open 2023;13:1-14.https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221145157. Article
• 4. Haruna EU, Asiedu WK, Baek YJ. Mapping the research trends on technological innovation in East Asia: a bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database for future research direction (1982-2022). J Scientometric Res 2025;13(3s):s3-21.https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.20041153. Article
• 5. Harsanto B, Firmansyah EA. A twenty years bibliometric analysis (2002–2021) of business economics research in ASEAN. Cogent Bus Manag 2023;10:2194467. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2194467. Article
• 6. Kim E. Demystifying multilingual LIS journals in Scopus: languages, coverage, metrics, and implications. J Librariansh Inf Sci 2024;Oct. 7. [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241285510. Article
• 7. Wang L. Planning major national strategic topics for science and technology journals: practice and reflection. EP 2024;2:1-7.https://doi.org/10.54844/ep.2024.0798. Article
• 8. Asai S. Strategies to increase the number of open access journals: the cases of Elsevier and Springer Nature. J Sch Publ 2022;53:75-84.https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.53.2.02. Article
• 9. Kim E, Jeong D. Comparison of the open access status and metrics of Scopus journals published in East Asian countries: a descriptive study. Sci Ed 2023;10:57-63.https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.297. Article
• 10. Kim E. A decade of divergence: journal publishing trends in ASEAN and East Asia, 2014–2024. In: Prabowo TT, Laugu N, Marwiyah, Muliyadi I, Zain L, Aribowo EK, editors. Revisiting competencies: preparing the next generation of library and information science professionals. Proceedings of the 9th International Library and Information Science Society Conference; 2025 Kim E. A decade of divergence: journal publishing trends in ASEAN and East Asia, 2014–2024. In: Prabowo TT, Laugu N, Marwiyah, Muliyadi I, Zain L, Aribowo EK, editors. Revisiting competencies: preparing the next generation of library and information science professionals. Proceedings of the 9th International Library and Information Science Society Conference; 2025 Aug 20–22; Yogyakarta, Indonesia. ASDIP-PTKI; 2025. p. 42–51. http://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/74086.
• 11. SCImago. SCImago journal & country rank [Internet]. SCImago; [cited 2025 Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.scimagojr.com/.
• 12. Widianto ED, Mantoro T, Wardoyo RS. The promotion of university journals published by Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia, from 2018 to 2024: a descriptive study. Sci Ed 2025;12:43-9.https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.353. Article
• 13. Wang J, Halffman W, Zhang YH. Sorting out journals: the proliferation of journal lists in China. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2023;74:1207-28.https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24816. Article
• 14. Vuong QH. The harsh world of publishing in emerging regions and implications for editors and publishers: the case of Vietnam. Learn Publ 2019;32:314-24.https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1255. Article

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by