A case against dissolving the UGC-CARE list Premium

Dissolving UGC-CARE List risks academic integrity, hindering progress in research quality and ethical publishing practices in India.

The recent announcement to dissolve the UGC-Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (CARE) List has come as a shock to academicians. Research publications are crucial for Ph.D. scholars to submit their theses, with varying requirements across universities, and hold significant weight in faculty selection, promotion, and career advancement.

The UGC first introduced the “UGC-Approved Journals” list in 2015, based on suggestions from universities nationwide. However, its credibility was undermined when sub-standard and predatory journals infiltrated the list, fostering a “pay-and-publish” culture that disregarded ethical guidelines.

Recognizing the adverse effects of predatory publications, the UGC launched the UGC-CARE List to enhance research publication quality. This initiative categorized journals into Group I (qualified through UGC-CARE protocols) and Group II (indexed in global databases like Scopus and Web of Science). The move gradually reduced predatory publications and raised awareness among researchers about quality publishing practices. Institutions conducted workshops on journal selection and research writing to break the entrenched habit of publishing in substandard journals.

As a result, faculty began aiming for higher-quality journals. However, challenges persist. According to the NIRF 2024 analysis, 27% of participating colleges and nearly 56% of management institutions reported no publications in Scopus/Web of Science databases during the assessment period (2020–2023), reflecting a critical issue.

Another pressing concern is the rise of cloned journals, where cyber criminals create fake websites mimicking legitimate journals, deceiving authors with rapid, unethical publishing practices. The prevalence of print-only journals in the UGC-CARE List exacerbates this issue, as verifying such publications is nearly impossible without a digital presence.

Attempts to authenticate these papers, such as contacting journal editors, often fail, leaving institutions struggling to assess the legitimacy of research output. Despite UGC’s efforts to flag cloned journals, these challenges highlight the urgent need for further action to ensure credibility and transparency in academic publishing.

To address these challenges, it is crucial for the UGC to establish a centralized, open-access database, the “UGC-CARE Publications Database,” akin to Scopus or Web of Science. This repository should include all papers published in UGC-CARE Group I journals, providing researchers, institutions, and administrators with a reliable platform to verify the authenticity of journals and their articles.