UGC CARE dissolution: Suggestive parameters for choosing journals released

The University Grants Commission (UGC), which has dissolved the UGC - CARE (Consortium for Research and Academic Ethics) list of approved journals for publication of research papers by faculty, has developed a set of suggestive parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals by faculty members. The suggestive parameters, framed by a group of academicians and experts, have been put in the public domain for feedback at the email id journal@ugc.gov.in. The deadline for sending feedback is Feb. 25.

The UGC-CARE list was introduced by the UGC in 2018 to ensure that only “reputable” journals are recognized for faculty selections, promotions, and research funding applications. It was created in response to concerns about the quality of research publications and the prevalence of predatory journals.

The suggestive parameters have been grouped under eight criteria such as Journal Preliminary Criteria, Journal Visibility, Research Ethics and so on. The UGC has asked that using these parameters, faculty members and students may choose peer-reviewed journals tailored to their specific disciplines and research focus areas for publishing their research work. HEIs may establish internal committee(s) to fine-tune the above-suggested parameters from time to time as needed in their specific cases to ensure they continue to meet the quality standards and to align with the institute’s academic and research goals.

The UGC-CARE list faced several criticisms, including: Over-centralization in deciding what constitutes high-quality research and journals; unnecessary delays in including or excluding journals from the list; inclusion of predatory journals due to an inefficient approach and so on. Many journals published in Indian languages were excluded from the UGC-CARE list.

UGC Chairman M. Jagadesh Kumar says: “The NEP 2020 highlighted that too much regulation had been attempted with little effect. It criticized the heavy concentration of decision-making power in centralized bodies, suggesting that such an approach was undesirable.” A UGC committee suggested discontinuing the UGC-CARE list and recommended that Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) develop their own credible institutional mechanisms for evaluating the quality of publications and journals.

Mr. Kumar says: “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. If HEIs fail to establish efficient mechanisms to identify credible journals, they risk endorsing faculty members with publications in dubious journals. This could damage the institution’s reputation and undermine the quality of its academic output.”

Mr. Kumar continues: “Experienced faculty members can guide young researchers by helping them identify credible journals, recognize warning signs of predatory journals, and make informed decisions about where to publish their work. This mentorship is crucial in preventing early-career scholars from falling victim to predatory practices.”