UGC Scraps Centralised CARE List for Journals, Introduces Decentralised Approach
Lexpedia · 13 February 2025, 12:00 am
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has announced a significant shift in its approach to academic publishing, scrapping the centralised UGC-CARE list of approved journals. This decision has sparked debates among academics, with some raising concerns about the risks associated with the move, including the potential rise of predatory journals.
Pressure on Academics to Publish
Abha Dev Habib, an Associate Professor at Miranda House, criticized the existing system, stating that recent education policies linking publications to promotions and accreditation have created undue pressure on faculty members. Habib pointed out that journals have started offering “pay-to-publish” options, which compromises the quality of research and undermines academic integrity.
UGC’s New Approach
The UGC has introduced suggestive parameters for higher education institutions to assess journals, focusing on key factors such as:
- Editorial and review process
- Expertise of editorial board members These parameters, however, are not mandatory, and institutions will now bear the responsibility of evaluating journals independently. According to UGC officials, this marks a step towards greater decentralisation, academic freedom, and institutional accountability.
Institutional Responsibility and Flexibility
Institutions are encouraged to assess journals based on discipline-specific needs. This new approach allows for a broader range of journals, enabling faculty members and researchers to make informed decisions about where to publish.
Concerns about the Scrapping of CARE List
While the CARE list had its flaws, the removal of the centralised list has raised concerns among academics. Some fear that the absence of this list will open the door for predatory journals to flourish, damaging the credibility of academic publishing. An anonymous academic described the move as “retrograde,” arguing that the CARE list was still in its early stages and could have helped curb the rise of low-quality journals.
UGC’s Response
The UGC Chairman defended the decision, stating that the new approach would address the weaknesses of a rigid, centralised list and promote stronger institution-driven quality control. He emphasized that institutions now have a vested interest in ensuring faculty publish in credible, high-quality journals to protect their reputation within the academic community.
Conclusion
While the move towards decentralisation aligns with the principles of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the scrapping of the UGC-CARE list has sparked a significant debate over the future of academic publishing in India. It remains to be seen whether this change will lead to a more flexible and quality-driven publishing environment or create a loophole for unscrupulous journals to thrive.
