The much-debated and highly anticipated announcement arrived on Feb. 11 — the UGC-CARE list has been withdrawn based on the recommendations of an expert committee. In its place, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has decided to discontinue the listing of journals and instead develop suggestive parameters to guide faculty members and students in selecting peer-reviewed journals.
These parameters, formulated by a panel of experts and academicians, have been released for public feedback. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are encouraged to adopt these suggestive criteria to identify peer-reviewed journals that best suit their disciplinary needs. The parameters cover key aspects such as: Journal Preliminary Criteria, Editorial Board Criteria, Editorial Policy, Journal Quality (Content) & Journal Standards, Research Ethics, Journal Visibility and Journal Impact criteria. Additionally, the UGC recommends that HEIs establish internal committees to periodically refine these parameters, ensuring they remain aligned with institutional academic and research objectives while upholding quality standards.
As the news broke, many research scholars and faculty members welcomed the decision, feeling liberated from the constraints of mandatory publications under the UGC-CARE framework. For years, they faced significant challenges, particularly due to the limited availability of journals in their specific fields. For instance, in Tamil language research, only two or three journals were listed, despite thousands of PhD students pursuing research in this domain. Moreover, regional languages often lack representation in global databases like Scopus and Web of Science, further restricting visibility.
Another major concern was the dynamic nature of the UGC-CARE list, where journals were frequently added and removed, raising questions about its reliability. Many researchers published their work in UGC-CARE Group I journals, only to later find that their journal had been delisted, rendering their publications invalid for academic evaluation. This exposed the infiltration of substandard or predatory journals within the UGC-CARE system.
A more serious issue was the inclusion of print-only journals,which were often targeted by cybercriminals and middlemen, leading to the proliferation ofcloned journals.The primary reason for this vulnerability was that UGC-CARE only listed journals but did not maintain a repository of published articles. As a result, academicians and administrators struggled to verify the legitimacy of publications, creating challenges in research assessment.
This new flexibility allows researchers to move away from the pressure of mandatory publishing, but institutions will remain accountable for their research performance. Rankings continue to demand an increase in publications and citations for institutions to climb the academic ladder. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) places significant weight on Research and Professional Practice, expecting institutions to publish in reputed journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Notably, while NAAC recognizes UGC-CARE Group I publications, NIRF does not count them. With the withdrawal of the UGC-CARE list, this decision may set back India’s progress in global research rankings.
Now, the responsibility of evaluating journal quality lies entirely with higher education institutions (HEIs). However, this raises concerns, given past experiences. In 2015, when the UGC created an Approved Journals List, many HEIs recommended substandard and predatory journals, leading to a credibility crisis. If proper training on journal selection and evaluation is not provided to committees responsible for maintaining journal lists, India risks returning to the pre-2015 era, where predatory journals proliferated unchecked.
Challenges ahead
While the UGC’s initiative aims to grant HEIs greater autonomy in regulating publication quality, it introduces several complex challenges:
Lack of Standardization – One institution’s list of approved journals may not align with another’s, leading to inconsistencies in faculty recruitment and promotion criteria.
Autonomous vs. Affiliated Colleges – Will autonomous colleges have the freedom to create their own evaluation mechanisms, or will they still be bound by the guidelines of their affiliated universities?
Proliferation of Multiple Journal Lists – Will each university now develop its own journal list, leading to further fragmentation in academic publishing standards?
How will accrediting agencies like NAAC, AICTE, and NBA evaluate research publications in their evolving assessment frameworks?
With NIRF requiring publications in Scopus and Web of Science indexed journals, how will institutions reconcile this expectation while maintaining their own independent list of approved journals?
Debate continues
The suggestive parameters provided by the UGC remain a topic of debate. While they outline general guidelines, predatory journals can still adhere to them superficially, as there is no clear monitoring mechanism to assess journal policies, performance, or ethical practices. Without proper checks and oversight, this shift could weaken the credibility of Indian research rather than strengthen it.
The question remains: Has the UGC empowered institutions, or has it simply passed on the responsibility without ensuring accountability? Only time will tell how HEIs navigate this transition.
Lack of authentic interventions
It is to be understood that benchmarking the quality of publications alone would not help ensure the standards of research. Any scheme or policy conceived by the government should design a right intervention for the stakeholders to build capacity to comply with the standards set by the government.
But citing the proliferation of predatory publications and withdrawing the benchmark of UGC CARE list would be an eluding measure by UGC. The issue should have been dealt with from a systemic perspective by consulting the stakeholders associated with the publications from Universities and colleges for brainstorming and curating their perspectives for ownership and compliance.
Relying on accreditation and ranking agencies for quality assurance will continue to emphasize research outcomes based on third-party curation, such as Clarivate Analytics. This puts colleges and universities in a difficult position, preventing them from independently encouraging high-quality publications.
Leaving it to universities to set research standards is a risky move by the UGC, as many institutions already struggle with predatory journals and lack awareness of legitimate ones. Currently, only clerical staff check compliance with the UGC CARE list before thesis submission, making the process vulnerable to errors. Assigning universities full responsibility for quality assurance and benchmarking would be a major misstep, as they lack the authority and capacity of the UGC, potentially leading to a decline in research quality.
The UGC must reconsider its decision and focus on faculty development through refresher courses that help educators distinguish credible journals from predatory ones. It should also mandate industry-academia collaborations and provide subsidies to support research on real-world problems, ensuring higher chances of publication in reputable journals.
Without evaluating the impact of the existing UGC CARE list and implementing necessary improvements, scrapping it altogether would be a historic mistake that the higher education sector in India may deeply regret.
(Dr. R. Vijay Solomon is Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Madras Christian College (Autonomous), Chennai)
Published – February 12, 2025 03:22 pm IST