UGC Discontinues UGC-CARE List

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has decided to discontinue the UGC Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (UGC-CARE) list. The list will now be replaced by a set of suggestive parameters for choosing academic journals.

About UGC-CARE List

• UGC Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (UGC-CARE) list was introduced in 2018 to list reputable academic journals.
• UGC-CARE was designed to ensure that only reputable journals were considered for faculty selection, promotions, and research funding applications.
• Criticism: The list faced criticism for various reasons:
  • Over-centralization: Academics complained that the UGC was making the final decision on what constituted high-quality research and journals, which led to delays in updating the list.
  • Lack of Representation: Journals in certain academic fields, especially in regional languages (like Tamil), were not included, limiting academic growth in those areas.
  • Transparency Issues: There were concerns that the decision-making process behind the list lacked transparency.

The New Suggestive Parameters

• In place of the UGC-CARE list, the UGC has issued a draft notification titled "Suggestive Parameters for Peer-Reviewed Journals." These parameters aim to guide authors in evaluating journals. Some of the key criteria include:
  • Preliminary Criteria: Title of the journal; International Standard Serial Number (ISSN); Periodicity and continuity; Transparent review policy
  • Editorial Board Criteria: Details about the journal's editorial board, including its composition.
  • Other Key Criteria:
    • Editorial policy: The journal's approach to content review.
    • Standards: How the journal adheres to academic and ethical standards.
    • Visibility: How widely the journal is circulated and accessed.
    • Research ethics: The integrity of the publication process.
  • These criteria are meant to help authors identify credible journals before submitting their articles for publication.

Rationale Behind the Change

• Decentralize the process: Higher education institutions (HEIs) will now have the responsibility to evaluate journals. This gives them the flexibility to create their own mechanisms for assessing journal quality based on their specific needs and academic norms.
• Combat Predatory Journals: The new system is designed to tackle fake or unethical journals by encouraging institutions to develop their own evaluation standards.
• Encourage Diversity: The decentralization allows institutions to adapt the evaluation process to suit newer or niche disciplines that may not fit into a one-size-fits-all list.

Concerns Raised

• Risk of Low-Quality Journals: Critics worry that without a central list like UGC-CARE, low-quality or "predatory" journals may proliferate.
• Lack of Oversight: The SFI has expressed concerns that decentralizing the process could lead to inconsistent journal evaluation practices across institutions, resulting in arbitrary decisions.
• Deregulation: The move is also seen as part of a larger trend of deregulation in higher education under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which critics argue could undermine academic integrity.