The University Grants Commission (UGC) has scrapped the UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics), a system that ensured the quality of research journals. The move, announced in October 2024, has sparked widespread debate among academics, particularly in Pune, where many believe that the decision could compromise research standards in India.

Earlier this month, the UGC introduced a new approach where institutions would be responsible for identifying suitable journals based on suggestive parameters provided by the commission. However, many researchers and faculty members argue that this decentralized approach lacks oversight and could lead to a decline in research quality.

Why Did UGC Scrap CARE?

UGC-CARE was established in 2018 to address concerns regarding predatory and low-quality journals. The system ensured that only credible academic journals were listed, helping faculty, students, and researchers publish their work in recognized platforms.

However, according to UGC Chairman M Jagadesh Kumar, the CARE list was discontinued due to concerns over “excessive centralization, subjectivity, lack of transparency, and inefficiencies in assessment.” The commission claims that allowing Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to decide their own journals will promote institutional autonomy.

Despite these claims, critics argue that removing a centralized list and leaving the decision to universities could lead to manipulation and dilution of research quality.

Concerns from Pune’s Academic Community

Academics from Pune’s leading institutions have expressed strong opposition to the move, warning that it could result in lower academic standards and confusion among researchers. Several professors, in conversations with The Indian Express, raised concerns over the impact of decentralizing journal selection.

Compromising Research Standards

A senior faculty member from Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU) stated that while some journals in the CARE list were of lower quality, the system helped filter out predatory journals.

“Many universities lack the infrastructure for rigorous research. If they start selecting journals on their own, it will compromise the quality of publications. UGC at least ensured that predatory journals were not included in the CARE list.”

Need for a Nationally Standardized List

Another professor from the Department of Chemistry at SPPU emphasized that removing the CARE list was not a practical decision.

“SCOPUS-based journals should be mandatory for research publication. For local language journals that are not covered under SCOPUS, the CARE list was an important benchmark. Instead of scrapping the list, UGC should have improved its review process.”

She further pointed out the potential risk of self-regulation by universities, stating:

“If universities are given full authority to decide their own journal lists, anyone could start a journal and publish their own work in it. The power to regulate research journals should remain at the national level, while state governments can maintain separate lists for regional language publications.”

Confusion Among Researchers

A faculty member from Fergusson College’s Sanskrit Department expressed concerns about the lack of clarity that would result from decentralizing journal selection.

“Researchers will struggle to identify credible journals. Universities having the authority to make their own lists could lead to bias and questionable practices in research publication.”

Fear of Lower Academic Standards

Many academics argue that without a regulated system, research journals could lose credibility, and universities may prioritize quantity over quality to increase their publication count.

A faculty member from the Hindi Department at SPPU emphasized the importance of UGC-CARE in maintaining research integrity.

“With the CARE list gone, journals must not be given a free hand. There should be continuous monitoring and strict action against poor-quality publications. If different universities recognize different journals, it will lead to academic inconsistencies and disputes.”

Alternative Perspective: Research Should Focus on Content, Not Lists

While most scholars opposed the decision, some had a different perspective. A faculty member from Poona College’s Hindi Department argued that research should not be dependent on a list but on content quality.

“Even before ISSN and ISBN numbers were introduced, research was published and widely read. Quality should be maintained by researchers themselves. Many scholars found it difficult to publish in CARE-listed journals due to long waiting periods. The removal of this list may, in fact, increase accessibility for researchers.”

However, critics argue that an unregulated system can lead to the rise of low-quality, non-peer-reviewed publications, damaging India’s global academic reputation.

What Lies Ahead for Indian Research?

With the UGC-CARE list scrapped, the future of research publications in India stands at a critical turning point. The absence of a nationally recognized, standardized journal list could lead to:

✅ More flexibility for institutions to choose journals
⚠️ Risk of manipulation and low-quality publications
⚠️ Confusion for researchers regarding credible journals
⚠️ Lack of transparency and oversight in academic publishing

While UGC insists that its “suggestive parameters” will help institutions identify quality journals, academics fear that universities may prioritize convenience over credibility.

The removal of the UGC-CARE list has sparked strong reactions from the academic community, especially in Pune, where many believe it played a crucial role in ensuring research integrity and academic credibility.

The big question remains: Will universities effectively self-regulate journal selection, or will this move lead to a decline in India’s research standards? The coming months will reveal whether this decision was a step toward academic freedom or a setback for Indian research.