Background on the UGC-CARE List and Its Evolution
The University Grants Commission (UGC) established the Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (UGC-CARE) in 2019 to address widespread concerns over predatory and low-quality journals infiltrating the Indian academic publishing ecosystem. The centralized list aimed to provide a vetted directory of credible peer-reviewed journals for faculty promotions under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), PhD thesis submissions, and research evaluation. Over time, however, the system faced criticism for its rigidity, subjectivity in journal selection, and inability to keep pace with the rapidly evolving global publishing landscape.
By late 2024, the UGC recognized these limitations. In its 584th meeting on October 3, 2024, the Commission decided to discontinue the UGC-CARE list entirely. This move marked a significant policy shift toward greater institutional autonomy and quality-focused evaluation.
The Shift to Decentralized Evaluation
Instead of maintaining a single, centrally curated list, the UGC introduced a set of suggestive parameters that Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) can use to evaluate journals independently. This decentralized model empowers universities and colleges to tailor their assessment processes to disciplinary needs while adhering to national standards of academic integrity.
The new framework emphasizes transparency, ethical publishing practices, and rigorous peer review. It responds to longstanding complaints that the CARE list inadvertently favored certain publishers and failed to account for emerging open-access models or discipline-specific nuances.
The 36 Suggestive Parameters: An Overview
The UGC outlined 36 parameters grouped under eight broad criteria. These serve as a practical checklist for HEIs when verifying journal credibility. Key categories include journal identity and registration, peer-review processes, editorial board quality, indexing and visibility, ethical standards, publication frequency and history, citation metrics, and policies on artificial intelligence in research.
For example, under journal identity, institutions are advised to verify valid ISSN numbers, consistent titles, and uninterrupted publication history. Ethical considerations now explicitly address transparency in editorial decisions and safeguards against predatory practices.
Implications for Researchers and PhD Scholars
For researchers, the change means greater responsibility in journal selection. PhD candidates submitting theses must now ensure their chosen journals meet institutional standards based on the suggestive parameters. This shift encourages deeper engagement with journal quality rather than reliance on a static list.
Faculty members pursuing promotions under CAS will similarly need to demonstrate that their publications align with the new evaluation criteria. Many HEIs are already developing internal guidelines and training workshops to support this transition.
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
Impact on Higher Educational Institutions
Universities and colleges now bear the primary responsibility for journal verification. This decentralization allows institutions to develop context-specific policies, particularly beneficial for specialized or regional disciplines that may have been underrepresented in the centralized list.
Larger universities with robust research offices are better positioned to implement these parameters, while smaller colleges may require additional support from bodies like the UGC or INFLIBNET Centre.
Stakeholder Perspectives
Academic leaders have welcomed the move toward institutional autonomy, noting that it aligns India’s system more closely with global best practices. Researchers, however, express caution about potential inconsistencies across institutions and the added administrative burden.
Publishers of legitimate Indian journals see an opportunity to strengthen their processes and gain recognition through transparent peer-review models. Predatory publishers, conversely, face heightened scrutiny as institutions apply stricter checks.
Challenges in Implementation
Transitioning from a centralized to a decentralized system presents logistical hurdles. Institutions must build capacity for journal evaluation, update promotion and thesis guidelines, and ensure faculty awareness. Concerns about subjectivity in applying the parameters persist, prompting calls for standardized training modules.
Some experts recommend that the UGC provide model templates and case studies to facilitate uniform adoption across the country.
Opportunities for Quality Enhancement
The new parameters place renewed emphasis on ethical publishing, including clear policies on AI-generated content. This focus supports India’s broader goals of elevating research integrity and global competitiveness.
Institutions that proactively adopt robust evaluation frameworks may see improvements in research output quality, citation impact, and international collaborations.
Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash
Future Outlook and Recommendations
As the decentralized model matures, ongoing dialogue between the UGC, HEIs, and academic associations will be essential. Regular reviews of the suggestive parameters and sharing of best practices can help refine the system.
Researchers are advised to consult their institution’s research cell early, prioritize journals with transparent peer-review processes, and stay informed about updates from the UGC. Professional development in research ethics and publishing practices will become increasingly valuable.
Actionable Insights for Academics
Academics should begin by reviewing the eight criteria and mapping their target journals against them. Maintaining detailed records of journal evaluation can strengthen promotion dossiers and thesis submissions.
Engaging with university-level workshops and contributing to internal policy development offers a proactive way to shape the evolving landscape.