Why in news?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has decided to discontinue the UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics) list of quality academic journals, first introduced in 2018.

Instead, it will provide a set of suggestive parameters for selecting journals based on eight criteria.

What’s in today’s article?

• UGC-CARE
• Reasons for Withdrawing UGC-CARE
• Concerns Over Scrapping the CARE List
• The New Approach to Journal Evaluation

UGC-CARE

• UGC-CARE was introduced in 2018 to combat the problem of predatory journals, journals that publish research in exchange for publishing fees without checks like peer reviews.
• Reason for Setting Up UGC-CARE
  • Significance of Research Publications
    • Publications in journals play a crucial role in institutional rankings, faculty appointments, promotions, and research grants.
    • The quality of research publications directly impacts the credibility and funding of higher education institutions.
  • Rise of Predatory Journals
    • Due to the importance of journal publications, substandard and predatory journals proliferated, offering publication for a fee without rigorous peer review.
    • This led to concerns about academic integrity and India's global research reputation.
  • UGC’s Concern and Response
    • In 2019, the UGC highlighted the negative impact of publishing in dubious journals, warning of long-term academic damage.
    • An investigation by a leading media house, in 2018, revealed over 300 publishers operating predatory journals in India, charging fees between $30 and $1800 for publication.
  • Establishment of UGC-CARE
    • Following these concerns, UGC introduced the Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics (CARE) in 2018 to replace the previous system of university-suggested journals.
    • Under CARE, a dedicated UGC cell assessed journals based on strict quality protocols.

Reasons for Withdrawing UGC-CARE

• Concerns with the UGC-CARE List
  • The UGC-CARE list was introduced to ensure only reputable journals were considered for faculty selections, promotions, and research funding.
  • However, it faced several criticisms, including:
    • Over-centralisation in deciding journal quality.
    • Delays in adding or removing journals.
    • Limited inclusivity, particularly in fields like Tamil studies.
    • Lack of transparency, leading to the exclusion of highly respected Indian-language journals.
• Shift to a Decentralised Approach
  • The UGC argues that decentralisation will:
    • Help combat predatory journals more effectively.
    • Make institutions responsible for evaluating journals.
    • Allow flexibility for institutions to develop their own mechanisms aligned with UGC’s suggested parameters.
    • Ensure evaluation models can adapt to evolving fields and disciplinary needs.
• Expert Committee Review (2023)
  • The UGC formed an expert committee to review the CARE system. The decision to discontinue it in October 2023 was based on concerns about:
    • Over-regulation, as highlighted by NEP 2020, which criticized excessive centralisation.
    • Lack of transparency, with no clear reasoning for journal inclusions or exclusions.
    • Inefficiencies, including delays in adding high-quality journals and sudden removals affecting faculty careers.
• Concerns from Academics
  • Experts pointed out that CARE was not exhaustive and created pressure to publish in specific journals.
  • Academics often receive offers to pay for publications, raising concerns about predatory practices.

Concerns Over Scrapping the CARE List

• Potential Rise of Predatory Journals
  • Academics fear that eliminating the CARE list removes a key safeguard against predatory journals.
  • Without a central oversight mechanism, low-quality and exploitative journals may thrive.
• Lack of Public Consultation
  • Some experts believe the system was still evolving and could have helped curb predatory publishing.
  • An academic described the move as “retrograde”, arguing that there should have been public consultation before scrapping CARE.

The New Approach to Journal Evaluation

• Suggestive Parameters for Institutions
  • The UGC has introduced non-binding ‘suggestive parameters’ to help institutions assess journals.
  • These parameters include evaluating the journal’s editorial process, peer review system, and the expertise of its editorial board.
• Institutional Responsibility & Accountability
  • Institutions are now responsible for developing their own mechanisms to evaluate journals.
  • Failure to do so could harm their reputation by endorsing faculty publications in dubious journals.
• Decentralisation & Academic Freedom
  • The new approach aims to promote decentralisation, academic freedom, and institutional accountability.
  • Faculty and researchers can assess journals based on discipline-specific criteria rather than relying on a centralised list.