China Perspectives
journal
China Perspectives (French: Perspectives chinoises) is a peer-reviewed quarterly academic journal that provides interdisciplinary analysis of developments in the contemporary Chinese world, including People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.
History
Perspectives chinoises was created and first published in 1992 by Michel Bonnin (Editor-in-Chief from 1992 to 1998), Jean-Philippe Béja and Raphaël Jacquet. It was launched by the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC), a Hong Kong-based research institute that is part of a network of 27 public research centers under the aegis of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French National Centre for Scientific Research.
China Perspectives was launched in 1995 as the English version of the French-language academic journal created in 1992. The two versions were published jointly until 2022; starting in 2023, only the English edition is published.
The predecessor to Perspectives chinoises was the Bulletin Mensuel, published by the Hong Kong branch of the French Centre for Research on Sinology between 1979 and 1983, followed by the Bulletin de sinologie from 1983 to 1992. During the 1980s and 1990s, the publication provided first-hand data and information on China in both French and English, before gradually evolving into a more scholarly publication.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “China Perspectives” is journal. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through China, Perspectives and journal, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “journal” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3376099. 2 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1992, 1998, 1995 and 2022.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “China Perspectives”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow China Perspectives primary sources, China Perspectives archive and China research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “China Perspectives”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “China Perspectives” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.