The University Grants Commission (UGC) has recently announced the dissolution of the UGC-CARE (Consortium for Research and Academic Ethics) list of approved journals used by faculty members for research publications. In its place, the UGC has introduced a set of suggestive parameters designed to help academics and researchers select appropriate peer-reviewed journals aligned with their disciplines and research goals.
This significant shift in policy aims to encourage autonomy and accountability among Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and researchers, moving away from a centralized list toward a more flexible, institution-driven approach.
Background: Why Was the UGC-CARE List Dissolved?
The UGC-CARE list was introduced in 2018 to address the growing concern about research quality and curb the influence of predatory journals — fraudulent or low-quality publishing outlets that often exploit researchers. The list served as a filter to ensure that only reputable journals were considered valid for faculty evaluation, promotions, and funding applications.
However, over time, several issues emerged:
- Over-centralization: Decision-making powers rested with a central body, limiting institutional autonomy.
- Delays: The process of including or removing journals could be slow and inefficient.
- Inclusion Errors: Some predatory journals still found their way onto the list.
- Language Bias: Many quality journals published in Indian languages were excluded.
Responding to these challenges and recommendations from the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the UGC decided to dismantle the list and empower institutions and researchers to make informed decisions by using a more dynamic set of criteria.
Suggestive Parameters for Journal Selection
A committee of academicians and experts framed the new suggestive parameters grouped under eight key criteria. These guidelines aim to provide flexibility while maintaining high research standards.
The eight criteria include:
- Journal Preliminary Criteria
Checks such as ISSN registration, peer-review status, publication frequency, and adherence to ethical norms. - Journal Visibility
The extent of the journal’s reach, reputation in the discipline, indexing in recognized databases, and whether it is accessible to the research community. - Research Ethics
Compliance with publication ethics, conflict of interest disclosures, anti-plagiarism policies, and transparency in editorial processes. - Editorial Board Composition
Presence of qualified and reputable experts from relevant disciplines on the editorial board. - Publication Quality
Assessment of the quality of published articles, citation metrics, and impact on the research community. - Peer Review Process
Clear, transparent, and rigorous peer review mechanisms ensuring integrity and quality. - Publication Timeliness
Regular and timely publishing schedules showing consistency. - Societal and Disciplinary Relevance
The scope and focus of the journal in relation to the researcher’s field of study.
How Should HEIs Implement These Parameters?
- Establish internal committees or review panels to adapt and fine-tune these parameters regularly based on institutional goals and evolving academic trends.
- Develop guidelines and training for faculty members and students about identifying credible journals.
- Encourage experienced academics to mentor early-career researchers in assessing journal quality.
- Promote awareness about predatory publishing practices and how to avoid them.
Importance of Institutional Autonomy
UGC Chairman M. Jagadesh Kumar emphasized that the NEP 2020 advocated reducing over-regulation and excessive centralization. According to him:
“By discontinuing the UGC-CARE list, the UGC has returned the journal selection process to HEIs, allowing researchers to publish in journals that best align with their discipline and audience without being constrained by a centralized list. This restores academic freedom and autonomy to HEIs.”
However, he also cautioned that without robust internal mechanisms, institutes risk quality lapses and damage to their reputation.
FAQs About UGC CARE Dissolution and Journal Selection
Q1: Why was the UGC-CARE list discontinued?
A: Due to over-centralization, delays, inclusion of predatory journals, and excluding several legitimate journals, the UGC decided to discontinue the list to promote institutional autonomy.
Q2: What should faculty members do now when choosing journals?
A: Faculty should use the UGC’s suggestive parameters as guidelines to select peer-reviewed, credible journals suited to their field.
Q3: Can HEIs have their own journal approval mechanisms?
A: Yes, HEIs are encouraged to establish internal committees to evaluate journals and adapt the criteria based on their research priorities.
Q4: How will this change impact early-career researchers?
A: Greater responsibility lies with mentors and institutions to guide early-career researchers in selecting credible journals and avoiding predatory ones.
Q5: What happens if an institution fails to maintain quality journal selection?
A: Publishing in dubious journals can harm an institution’s reputation and undermine the quality of academic output.
Conclusion
The dissolution of the UGC-CARE list marks a strategic move toward greater academic freedom and decentralization in India’s higher education system. The introduction of suggestive parameters enables HEIs and researchers to take active roles in ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. While this approach requires vigilance and institutional commitment, it promises a more customized and transparent framework aligned with the diverse academic landscape of India.
Faculty members and institutions are urged to review the suggestive parameters, provide feedback to UGC by February 25 at journal@ugc.gov.in, and collaboratively strive for excellence in research publishing.
