The University Grants Commission (UGC) has officially discontinued the UGC-CARE list, marking a significant transformation in the Indian academic publishing landscape. The decision, based on recommendations from an expert committee, shifts the responsibility of journal evaluation from a centralized UGC framework to individual Higher Education Institutes (HEIs).
Background: The UGC-CARE List and Its Challenges
The UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics) list was introduced in 2018 to establish a credible and standardized list of journals for faculty recruitment, promotions, and research funding. However, the framework soon faced widespread criticism due to:
- Over-centralization in decision-making, limiting academic freedom.
- Lack of transparency in journal inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- Inclusion of predatory journals, compromising the integrity of academic publishing.
- Exclusion of high-quality journals, particularly those published in Indian languages.
- Uncertainty for researchers, as journals were often removed abruptly, affecting career prospects.
The New Approach: Institutional Autonomy in Journal Evaluation
Autonomous Journal Selection – HEIs will develop internal guidelines to assess journal credibility instead of relying on a centralized UGC-approved list.
Recognition of Emerging Disciplines – The new system allows better evaluation of journals catering to rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary research fields.
Improved Academic Freedom – Researchers can now choose journals based on their discipline-specific needs without being constrained by a fixed list.
Enhanced Institutional Accountability – HEIs are responsible for ensuring high scholarly standards and preventing faculty from publishing in predatory journals.
Challenges and Concerns in the New Framework
Lack of Uniformity – Without a common national benchmark, different HEIs may adopt varied and inconsistent journal evaluation methods.
Risk of Predatory Publishing – Weak regulatory frameworks may lead to faculty members publishing in low-quality or predatory journals, damaging institutional reputation.
Increased Administrative Burden – HEIs will need to establish dedicated committees or mechanisms to oversee journal selection, adding to their workload.
Equity Issues – Smaller institutions with limited resources may struggle to create effective evaluation mechanisms, leading to potential disadvantages for their researchers.
The Role of Faculty in Upholding Scholarly Standards
Helping young researchers identify credible journals.
Raising awareness about predatory publishing practices.
Ensuring accountability in institutional journal evaluation processes.
Encouraging ethical authorship and citation practices.
Academic Community Reactions and Future Outlook
Supporters argue that decentralization encourages academic freedom, accommodates newer research fields, and reduces bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Critics, however, warn that inconsistent implementation and lack of oversight may lead to a rise in substandard publications and diluted academic standards.
Conclusion: A New Era for Academic Publishing in India
The discontinuation of the UGC-CARE list marks a significant policy shift in India's academic publishing landscape. While the move empowers HEIs with greater control, its success will depend on how effectively institutions establish, monitor, and enforce journal evaluation mechanisms.
Going forward, UGC's role will be to provide advisory guidelines, facilitate best practices, and ensure that Indian research continues to meet global academic standards. As HEIs adapt to this new framework, the responsibility of preserving scholarly excellence now rests at the institutional level.
