<p>This study examines the reconfiguration of power dynamics within China’s academic field following the “Breaking the Five Onlys” (BFO) reform, a top-down policy initiative aimed at transforming research evaluation systems in Chinese universities. Drawing on Bourdieu’s framework of field and capital, this research explores how the reform has altered the value and interplay of intellectual, political, and social capital, reshaping power hierarchies and academic practices. Using qualitative data from social media discussions and in-depth interviews with scholars across various disciplines, the findings reveal that while the reform’s objectives of promoting quality, innovation, and societal impact are widely recognized, its implementation has produced unintended consequences. The diversification of evaluation criteria has expanded administrative and academic discretion, empowering institutional leaders (<i>lingdao</i>) and established scholars (<i>xuefa</i>), while amplifying the role of <i>guanxi</i> (personal connections). These dynamics disproportionately disadvantage early-career scholars and those lacking access to key networks. Moreover, the reform’s shift from international benchmarks to domestic standards has sparked mixed reactions, with concerns about the capacity of domestic journals and the potential de-internationalization of Chinese academia. By analyzing the interplay of power and capital post-reform, this study provides critical insights into the challenges of balancing national autonomy and global integration in academic evaluation, offering broader implications for research policy and academic governance in China and beyond.</p>