End to approved journal list ‘blow’ to Indian research quality

The Indian higher education regulator’s decision to scrap a central list of approved journals for academic publishing has prompted concerns about the potentially negative impact on research quality.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has axed the Consortium for Research and Academic Ethics (CARE) list, which was introduced in 2018 to ensure academics were publishing in reputable journals. 

Established in response to concerns about predatory publications, the initiative provided a list of journals approved by the UGC across all disciplines. 

In some Indian institutions, only publications in the journals included on the list were recognised when hiring faculty, determining promotions and allocating research grants. 

However, the list was discontinued in February following concerns about “over-centralisation” and the continued inclusion of predatory journals, according to Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, chair of the UGC.

Instead the UGC has told higher education institutes to develop their own mechanisms for evaluating the quality of research journals and has developed a list of “suggestive parameters” to help guide this decision-making. These include factors such as expertise of editorial board members, rigorous peer review mechanisms and a transparent fee structure. 

“By discontinuing the UGC-CARE list, the UGC has returned the journal selection process to higher education institutions, allowing researchers to publish in journals that best align with their discipline and audience without being constrained by a centralised list,” Kumar writes in a statement. “This restores academic freedom and autonomy to higher education institutions.”

In 2022, the UGC scrapped a requirement for PhD students to publish in academic journals, in a similar move to tackle a rise in predatory journals. 

However, there are concerns about the impact this decision could have on the standards of Indian research. While the country’s academic output has grown quickly in recent years, there are suggestions that quality has not kept pace. 

Jayakrishnan Athipettah, an Indian National Science Academy Senior Scientist at the University of Kerala, described the decision as a “blow to the standards of research”. 

“This will open up the doors for predatory journals, which will undermine the already tarnished image of Indian research globally,” he said. 

Achal Agrawal, a data scientist and the founder of India Research Watch, also believed that the system should be improved, rather than disregarded completely. 

“UGC has been rightly criticised before [for] containing many dubious journals,” he said. “Instead of scrapping it, they must make it better by assuring only quality journals are listed.”

Agrawal felt that, in discontinuing the list, more “power” will be given to international databases like Scopus and Web of Science. “The fact that the databases are maintained by publishers is a clear case of conflict of interest as it lets them control what counts in science,” he said. 

Kumar suggested that more experienced academics should act as guides for early career researchers. 

“Many researchers, especially early career scholars, may fall victim to predatory journals due to a lack of awareness about the warning signs,” he said. “Best practices suggest that a sense of accountability must originate from within institutions to sustain their reputation for scholarly rigour and ethical practices.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com