UGC-CARE LIST DROPPED: A SHIFT TOWARDS DECENTRALIZED RESEARCH EVALUATION

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has taken a significant step by discontinuing its UGC-CARE list of journals, citing concerns over subjectivity and lack of transparency. This move is accompanied by the introduction of new guidelines that seek to empower universities, faculty, and students to make independent yet informed decisions regarding research publication. While this shift aims to decentralise the process and improve academic freedom, it also raises concerns about the potential risks of predatory publishing and inconsistent evaluation standards. This article analyses the rationale behind UGC’s decision, the impact on researchers, and the possible consequences of this policy shift.

The Shortcomings of the UGC-CARE List

The UGC-CARE list was initially introduced to ensure quality research publications and to prevent faculty and students from falling prey to predatory journals. However, researchers widely criticised the system for its lack of clarity and centralised control. Several key issues contributed to this dissatisfaction:

1.????? Lack of Transparency: Researchers frequently complained about the unclear criteria for a journal’s inclusion or removal from the list, leading to uncertainty and anxiety about publication options.

2.????? Slow and Bureaucratic Process: The approval and review process for journals in the list was slow and inefficient, making it difficult for researchers to find timely and relevant publication avenues.

3.????? Limited Scope for Non-STEM Disciplines: Many scholars in the humanities and social sciences found that their disciplines were inadequately represented in the list, making it harder to find reputable journals within their fields.

4.????? Abrupt Removal of Journals: Journals were sometimes removed without sufficient notice, causing disruptions for researchers who had already submitted their work.

5.????? Inflexibility in Publication Choice: The reliance on a centralised list restricted academic freedom, forcing researchers to prioritise listed journals even if more suitable or prestigious options were available elsewhere.

These challenges ultimately led the UGC to reevaluate its approach and adopt a more decentralised system for journal selection.

New UGC Guidelines: A Decentralised Model

In response to the criticisms of the UGC-CARE list, the UGC formed an expert committee to develop new parameters for journal selection. These guidelines aim to provide a more flexible framework that institutions can use to assess the credibility of journals independently.

Key features of the new guidelines include:

1.????? Universities Take Responsibility: Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) are encouraged to establish their own systems for evaluating journals rather than relying on a single national list.

2.????? Standardised Quality Parameters: The guidelines outline key criteria such as peer review policies, impact factors, ethical standards, indexing in reputed databases, and transparency in editorial practices.

3.????? Encouragement for Subject-Specific Approaches: Institutions are advised to tailor their selection process according to their respective disciplines, ensuring that non-STEM fields receive due consideration.

4.????? Focus on Ethical Publishing: The UGC emphasises preventing unethical practices such as plagiarism, self-citation inflation, and conflicts of interest.

5.????? Role of Senior Faculty: Senior researchers and faculty members are encouraged to mentor younger researchers in identifying credible journals and avoiding predatory publishers.

These changes signal a shift from a prescriptive to a suggestive model, allowing institutions greater autonomy while maintaining academic integrity.

Potential Benefits of the New System

The new guidelines present several advantages that could significantly enhance the quality of research in India:

·???????? Greater Academic Freedom: Researchers will have more flexibility in selecting publication venues that best suit their work.

·???????? Inclusion of Regional and Multidisciplinary Journals: The rigid structure of the UGC-CARE list often excluded journals in Indian languages and interdisciplinary fields. The new model encourages broader inclusion.

·???????? Faster Adaptation to Changing Research Landscapes: By allowing universities to update their own evaluation systems, the model ensures that research publication standards remain dynamic and relevant.

·???????? Encouragement for Institutional Responsibility: Instead of relying solely on a national body, institutions will take a more active role in maintaining publication quality, fostering a culture of academic rigour.

Concerns and Challenges

Despite its merits, the decentralised approach also comes with potential risks:

·???????? Risk of Predatory Journals: Without strict oversight, universities might inadvertently allow faculty and students to publish in low-quality or predatory journals, affecting the credibility of Indian research.

·???????? Lack of Uniformity: Institutions might develop varied and inconsistent journal evaluation criteria, leading to discrepancies in academic standards.

·???????? Increased Burden on Faculty: Senior faculty members will have to take on the additional responsibility of guiding researchers in journal selection, which could be time-consuming.

·???????? Possible Manipulation: Some institutions might favour specific journals for internal or political reasons, raising concerns about bias and conflicts of interest.

To mitigate these risks, the UGC has encouraged universities to establish rigorous internal review mechanisms and ensure adherence to global publishing standards.

To cut a long story short, the discontinuation of the UGC-CARE list marks a pivotal moment in India’s academic publishing landscape. By replacing a centralised list with a set of flexible guidelines, the UGC seeks to promote academic autonomy and accommodate the diverse needs of different disciplines. While the new model presents significant opportunities for a more dynamic and inclusive research culture, it also necessitates caution to prevent the proliferation of unethical publishing practices. The success of this transition will depend on how well institutions implement these guidelines, uphold ethical standards, and train researchers to navigate the evolving scholarly publishing environment. Stakeholders have time until February 25 to provide feedback on these guidelines, shaping the future of research evaluation in India.

Dr. M. ILANKUMARAN