Discusses the academic value and research status of translated works in overseas China studies since the reform and opening-up, noting that previous research has largely focused on authoritative works, lacking systematic analysis of translations. By compiling the "Bibliography of Overseas China Studies in Chinese: 1978–2018" and employing bibliometric methods, the author organizes and analyzes translations from 1978 to 2018 to reveal their characteristics and trends.

I. Definition and Statistics of Translated Works

First, it points out that since the reform and opening-up in 1978, overseas China studies have regained attention from the Chinese academic community, with continuous developments in theory, methodology, and fields. The surge in related translations has played a significant role in promoting Chinese academia's understanding of overseas China studies. Next, it defines translated works, including five categories: Chinese translations of foreign scholars' foreign-language works; bilingual Chinese-foreign language books and photocopied foreign-language books; works written directly in Chinese by foreign scholars; Chinese translations of works by Chinese scholars in foreign languages; and co-authored works or compiled dialogues between foreign scholars and scholars from Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. Finally, it explains the statistical situation of translations: a total of 8,101 main entries for Chinese translations and related works in overseas China studies from 1978 to 2018 were collected, including 5,989 main entries for translations and 2,112 main entries for research works, with a total of 11,950 sub-entries. After statistical analysis, 9,258 translation entries were obtained, though due to the compilers' oversight, the actual number should be 9,258.

II. Characteristics and Trends of Translations from 1978 to 2018

Conducted a comprehensive analysis of Chinese translations in overseas China studies from 1978 to 2018, revealing their characteristics and development trends. In terms of publication year, among the 9,258 translation entries, 9,246 had clear publication dates, while the remaining 12 were excluded from statistics due to special reasons. The publication volume of translations from 1978 to 2018 did not increase steadily but showed periodic fluctuations, heavily influenced by publishing trends in mainland China. The number of translations published by Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and foreign publishers remained relatively stable, with an annual average of 38 entries, showing significant growth from 2010 to 2018, and is expected to stabilize around 45 to 60 entries in the future. The trend of translations in mainland China largely aligns with the overall trend, influenced by key events such as the standardization of the copyright market, China's accession to the WTO, and the Prosperity Plan for Philosophy and Social Sciences in Higher Education. Analyzing by decade, the total publication volume in each successive decade is nearly double that of the previous decade, with the last decade being six times that of the first. In terms of publication locations, although translations were published in 73 cities, the distribution shows relative concentration: 14 cities published over 100 translation entries each, accounting for 85% of all publication locations. Beijing, Taipei, and Shanghai published the most translations, accounting for 64.2%. Guilin, a non-provincial capital city, published a relatively high number of translations, thanks to the efforts of Guangxi Normal University Press. Ranking by provincial administrative centers, western regions and Macao published relatively few translations. Regarding publishers, a total of 868 publishers published translations from 1978 to 2018, showing an uneven but relatively concentrated distribution. The top 2% of publishers accounted for 31.5% of the total translation publications, such as Jiangsu People's Publishing House, Zhonghua Book Company, and Guangxi Normal University Press, which published numerous translations of academic value and established distinctive brands for Chinese books in overseas China studies. In terms of the nationalities of contributors, translations involved scholars from 68 countries and regions outside China, totaling 8,913 contributors. American scholars held an overwhelming advantage, followed by Japanese scholars, with scholars from the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and others following. Canada ranked fifth due to the number of works by Ye Jiaying, while the Netherlands had 147 entries due to Robert van Gulik's "Judge Dee" translations. The scope of nationalities is gradually expanding, reflecting the breadth and depth of China studies worldwide. Regarding scholars, to objectively present the translation of scholars' works in China, the statistical method treats each translation of a scholar's work as one entry.

III. Reflections and Prospects

Emphasizes the significance of translation publications for the development of Chinese academia and cultural exchange, noting that translations are not merely language conversions but also bridges for cultural deconstruction and interpretation. Citing the views of Liang Qichao and Ji Xianlin, it highlights the importance of translation for Chinese culture. After analyzing the characteristics and trends of translation publications from 1978 to 2018, it proposes four future directions for translation work: First, in terms of research subjects, balance historical and contemporary works to better understand China's historical and cultural traditions and provide resources for contemporary China studies. Second, in terms of style, balance classic and popular works, paying attention to current popular works while carefully selecting classic masterpieces. Third, in terms of language types, balance mainstream and niche languages to construct a comprehensive and diverse picture of overseas China studies. Fourth, in terms of research regions, balance global and regional perspectives to showcase the unique cultures and regional differences of various areas. It also points out current issues in translation publications, such as blind selection and questionable translation quality, and calls for collective reflection on how to attract more scholars to engage in translation work.