UGC scraps CARE list, suggests parametres to universities to choose journals
The parameters, developed by experts, have been put on the UGC website for public feedback until February 25.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) on Tuesday announced its decision to discontinue the UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics) list of journals and proposed suggestive parametres for faculties to choose peer-reviewed journals.
The parametres, developed by experts, have been put on the UGC website for public feedback until February 25.
UGC chairperson M Jagadesh Kumar said the discontinuation of UGC-CARE will restore academic freedom and autonomy to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as they will have their process to select the journals for publication. The new system suggested by experts places the responsibility of journal evaluation and selection in the hands of HEIs and fosters a sense of ownership and accountability for maintaining high academic standards, he said.
Research publications in peer-reviewed reputed journals are crucial in faculty selection, promotion, and career advancement. Academicians have welcomed the decision but raised concerns over inconsistency in UGC’s policies.
The decision to scrap the UGC-CARE list was taken in the academic body’s meeting held on October 3 last year based on the recommendations of the expert committee, UGC said in an official notice issued on Tuesday.
“In supersession of the Public Notice dated 28th November 2018 for establishing UGC- CARE, the Commission, in its 584th meeting held on October 3, 2024, based on the recommendations of the expert committee has decided to discontinue UGC-CARE listing of journals and develop suggestive parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals by faculty members and students,” the UGC said in the notice.
In response to concerns about the quality of research publications and the prevalence of predatory journals, the higher education regulator in 2018 introduced the UGC-CARE list to ensure that only “reputable” journals are recognised for faculty selections, promotions, and research funding applications.
The commission said that the UGC-CARE list faced criticism for its opaque, centralised process, delays, and inclusion of predatory journals while excluding credible ones, especially in Indian languages. Researchers also struggled with limited publishing options.
In December 2023, the UGC decided to establish an expert committee to review the UGC-CARE scheme. “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-science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, which led to questionable authenticity claims for UGC-CARE listed publications,” Kumar said.
“Based on the committee’s recommendations, the UGC unanimously approved discontinuing the UGC-CARE list. Instead, it recommended that HEIs develop their own credible institutional mechanisms for evaluating the quality of publications and journals,” he added.
The suggestive parametres developed by a group of experts and academicians are categorised into eight criteria, including research ethics, journal preliminary criteria, journal visibility, and journal impact criteria. The UGC has advised faculty and students to use these parametres to select peer-reviewed journals suitable to their disciplines and research focus.
“The new approach places the responsibility on the institutions, encouraging them to create a culture of academic integrity, accountability, and excellence. HEIs will ensure faculty publish in credible journals because their reputation and ranking depend on it. Universities and colleges compete for accreditation, research grants, and rankings. If an institution fails to uphold research quality, its faculty’s publications will be devalued, affecting its credibility and attractiveness to students and researchers,” Kumar said.
Academics have raised concerns over inconsistency in UGC’s policies and asked the commission to develop a mechanism to check predatory journals.
“UGC has failed to maintain policy stability. First, UGC-CARE was made mandatory, forcing thousands of faculty members and researchers into a rigid system. Now, suddenly, it has been scrapped without any concrete alternative,” Rajesh Jha, a former member of the executive council at Delhi University (DU), said.
Abha Dev Habib, associate professor at DU’s Miranda House, said even after the UGC-CARE list scrapping, “the critical question remains on the proliferation of predatory journals that are not peer-reviewed by the best of people in the discipline for which it is publishing papers. UGC needs to formulate a mechanism to check the rise of predatory journals”.
DU academic council member Jitendra Meena said the discontinuation of the UGC-CARE list has brought back the system that was in place before the introduction of the list in 2018.
“The faculties and scholars in departments of every university know high-quality journals in their discipline and will choose them for research publication like they used to do before the introduction of this list. Every university has its own ethics committee, and they will choose credible journals for publication like they used to do before the introduction of the UGC-CARE list,” he said.