Why UGC is scrapping its list of quality journals, what is the new ‘decentralised’ system

The UGC has now developed a set of ‘suggestive parameters’ for higher education institutions to identify suitable journals for themselves. It made these parameters public on Tuesday (February 11) and is collecting feedback on them till February 25.

What prompted the UGC to set up CARE?

Publications in journals are considered for rankings of institutions, faculty appointments and promotions, and research grants. The strength of research publications can impact faculty appointments and promotions in higher education institutions, as well as funding for research.

Given their significance, journals that publish work minus the rigours involved with publishing in reputed journals began to mushroom. This concern was reflected by the UGC in a document on CARE in 2019. “Publications in dubious/sub-standard journals reflect adversely leading to long-term academic damage and a tarnished image,” the agency wrote. “The problem of predatory/dubious/sub-standard journals has become a cause of serious concern all over the world. The percentage of research articles published in poor quality journals is reported to be high in India, which has adversely affected its image,” it wrote.

In a 2018 investigation, The Indian Express found that India has a thriving ‘predatory journal’ market with over 300 publishers managing these journals. Most of these are online, and charge fees ranging from $30 to $1800 to publish. Following the investigation, the UGC announced CARE the same year.

CARE replaced the erstwhile system of maintaining an approved list of journals based on suggestions received from universities. With CARE, a cell established by the UGC would assess the journal based on a protocol that examined its credentials.

Why has the UGC done away with CARE now?

According to UGC Chairman M Jagadesh Kumar, the UGC set up an expert committee to review CARE in 2023. He said, “NEP 2020 highlighted that too much regulation had been attempted with little effect. It criticised the heavy concentration of decision-making power in centralised bodies, suggesting that such an approach was undesirable.”

Kumar said the decision to discontinue the UGC-CARE list last October was “based on concerns regarding subjectivity, lack of transparency, and inefficiencies in its assessment process.” He added that the committee’s review identified areas where this model was “lacking in several ways.”

This included a lack of “clear reasoning behind why specific journals were included while others were omitted”, “many faculty members faced career-related difficulties due to the sudden removal of journals from the UGC-CARE list without prior notice,” and “adding new, high-quality journals was slow, with no clear feedback on why their applications were pending or rejected.”

“Despite its intended purpose of curbing predatory publishing, low-quality or questionable journals entered the UGC-CARE list,” he said. “Many reputed Indian language journals were left out, reducing opportunities for scholars to publish in Indian languages. This approach contradicted the spirit of NEP 2020, which promotes Indian languages and Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) in higher education.”

He also said that the CARE system had “limitations in evaluating non-STEM journals”, which created barriers for researchers in social sciences, law and Indian languages.

Abha Dev Habib, Associate Professor, Miranda House, said that the UGC-CARE list was not exhaustive and resulted in pressure to publish in certain journals. “We often get emails saying we can pay and publish,” she said. “Without investigating inputs and investing in research, recent education policies connect publications in journals to promotions, rankings and accreditation, creating pressure on teachers to publish. There are no shortcuts to quality research and the government will have to put in money to promote it.”

What is the new approach?

The UGC has listed ‘suggestive parameters’ for higher education institutions to assess journals, including the journal’s editorial and review process and the expertise of its editorial board. These parameters are not binding on the institution.

However, this puts the onus on the institution to evaluate journals. “If institutions fail to create efficient mechanisms (to evaluate journals), they risk damaging their institutional reputation by endorsing faculty members who publish in dubious journals,” Kumar said. He said that the decision to discontinue the list and provide suggestive parameters is a “step towards decentralisation, academic freedom and institutional accountability.”

“Faculty members and research scholars can now assess journals using the suggested parameters that fit their disciplines rather than relying on a central list. The new approach allows for a broader range of journals,” he added.

On whether this might take the system back to a pre-CARE one, Kumar that institutions have the flexibility to “make informed, discipline-specific choices while maintaining high academic standards. This decision is in tune with NEP 2020, which discourages over-centralisation in scholarly publishing.”

What concerns have been raised about the scrapping of the CARE list?

Academics have pointed out that while the list had its problems, scrapping it altogether could do away with the checks that CARE had introduced against predatory journals, providing them the space to thrive.

An academic, who was previously associated with the UGC and did not want to be identified, referred to the move as a “retrograde” step. “The system was still teething, but it could have helped dry up the pipeline of predatory journals. There should have been some public consultation before it was scrapped,” the academic said.

When asked if the new system could lead to a proliferation of predatory journals, the UGC Chairman said, “Rather than making the system more vulnerable to predatory journals, the new approach eliminates the weaknesses of a rigid centralised list. It promotes a more robust, institution-driven quality control mechanism.”

He added that higher education institutions now have a “strong incentive” to maintain their credibility by preventing faculty from publishing in predatory journals. According to him, institutions that fail to enforce quality standards “risk harming their reputation in the academic community.”

On whether the UGC had sought to address the issues with CARE before doing away with it altogether, Kumar said, “Yes, the UGC had attempted to address the shortcomings of the UGC-CARE system before finally deciding to discontinue the centralised list. However, despite these efforts, significant issues persisted, leading to the decision to transition to a more decentralised and flexible approach.”