Abstract
Academic publishing is central to scholarly recognition and career advancement, yet access to publication opportunities remains unevenly distributed. This study examines how academic status shapes publication opportunities in leading Chinese CSSCI and international SSCI higher education journals. Drawing on a mixed-methods design, the study analyses publication data from six journals (2013–2024) and incorporates semi-structured interviews with early career researchers (ECRs). The findings reveal clear differences between the two publishing contexts. SSCI journals are generally perceived to follow a more universalistic logic that emphasizes research quality, whereas CSSCI journals display stronger particularistic tendencies. Moreover, academic status significantly shapes publication opportunities, particularly in the Chinese context, contributing to a Matthew Effect in which scholars from prestigious institutions and those with senior titles gain disproportionate publication advantages. Consequently, ECRs, especially those from non-elite institutions, face intense performance pressures alongside status-based gatekeeping within the publication process. The study highlights the need for a more open, inclusive and merit-based publishing environment.