New Delhi: The University Grants Commission (UGC) Tuesday announced the discontinuation of its Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (UGC-CARE) list of journals, recommending that higher education institutions (HEIs) develop their own mechanisms for evaluating the quality of publications and journals.
Introduced in 2018, the UGC-CARE list aimed to recognise only reputable journals for faculty selections, promotions and research funding, addressing concerns over research quality and predatory journals. The commission had strongly recommended using journals from the list for academic purposes, meaning publications from non-listed journals could not be considered valid for academic evaluation.
In a notification issued Tuesday, the UGC announced that in its 584th meeting held on 3 October, 2024, it decided to discontinue the list based on recommendations from an expert committee. The decision is in accordance with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
Additionally, the UGC has developed suggested parameters for selecting peer-reviewed journals by faculty members and students. These parameters, formulated by a group of experts and academicians, are now open for public feedback until 25 February, 2025.
Also Read: NITI Aayog report says Haryana biggest laggard among its neighbours in higher education
The issue with UGC-CARE list
The list faced criticism on several counts, including over-centralisation in determining what qualifies as high-quality research and journals, besides unnecessary delays in adding or removing journals from the list.
Researchers also encountered multiple challenges, including pressure to publish in UGC-CARE listed journals for career advancement, uncertainty when journals were suddenly removed from the list, leaving those who had published in them in a difficult situation, and limited options for publishing in highly respected journals that were not in the list.
In fact, many journals published in Indian languages, which were highly respected in their respective disciplines, were excluded from the UGC-CARE list due to lack of transparency in the decision-making process. This exclusion disadvantaged researchers who published in these journals.
According to UGC Chairperson M. Jagadesh Kumar, in line with NEP 2020—which recommends a “decentralised” approach—in December 2023, the commission had decided to form an expert committee to review the UGC-CARE scheme.
Based on the committee’s recommendations, the commission unanimously approved discontinuing the list, and instead recommended that HEIs develop their own credible mechanisms for evaluating the quality of publications and journals, Kumar said in a statement.
“The expert committee found that the UGC-CARE model introduced varying levels of subjectivity in the assessment process. It was particularly criticised for its approach to handling journals in non-STEM disciplines, which led to questionable authenticity claims for UGC-CARE listed publications,” the statement read.
Suggested parameters for identifying quality journals
The UGC has recommended that HEIs develop their own institutional mechanisms for evaluating the quality of publications and journals, which should align with established academic norms and indicative parameters suggested by the commission.
The HEIs can create evaluation models that consider the unique characteristics of different disciplines, including newer and rapidly evolving fields, and maintain plagiarism checks. This flexibility allows for recognition of journals that may not have been sufficiently acknowledged by older and more traditional indexing models.
“This decentralised approach allows HEIs to tailor their evaluation processes to suit their specific needs. Researchers will no longer be constrained by a centralised list of journals. Institutions can now create evaluation models that consider the unique characteristics of different disciplines and accommodate newer, rapidly evolving fields. This allows for greater academic freedom and flexibility in journal selection,” Kumar said.
The UGC is urging experienced professors to guide younger researchers in making informed decisions when selecting journals, particularly to steer clear of predatory publishers.
The updated guidelines also advocate for universities to establish robust systems for evaluating journals and promoting awareness of high publishing standards. The aim is to shift away from outdated lists and develop a more transparent adaptable system that better reflects the diverse nature of contemporary research.
Also Read: In bill to establish private universities, an ideological shift by Kerala’s ruling LDF
What the flexibility means
According to the UGC, by discontinuing the UGC-CARE list, it 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 centralised 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,” the UGC chairperson said.
Academics question ‘U-turn’
The decision has raised concerns about the standard of academic publishing, with the researcher community also questioning why it was announced in 2018 in the first place.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Academics for Action and Development (AAD), a faculty group at Delhi University, said that the UGC-CARE system was initially made mandatory forcing thousands of faculty members and researchers to adhere to a rigid framework.
“Now, it has been abruptly scrapped without any clear alternative, leaving many questioning whether this move truly improves academic quality or if it’s just another tactic to keep faculty members in a constant state of uncertainty,” the group said.
“This raises critical questions that need answers—if UGC-CARE was deemed ineffective, why was it made mandatory in 2018? If it is no longer necessary, does that mean researchers were wrongly forced to comply with it for years? Moreover, is the government and UGC making policy changes purely for short-term gains and electoral benefits?”
Rajesh Jha, a faculty member at Delhi University and former executive council member, questioned who will compensate for the losses faced by faculty members whose promotions were delayed due to the list requirements. “We have been raising concerns over these mandatory requirements of the UGC-CARE list since the beginning. What is the point of accepting that demand now after so much loss?” he said.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: NITI Aayog says lack of English proficiency key barrier to state university graduates getting jobs