Rigid Oversight Not the Way to Ensure Research Quality

Scholarly publishing is a structured, yet diverse, system. While publishing research work in peer-reviewed journals, one should choose those journals that align with disciplinary variations. At the same time, journals must uphold academic rigor and ethical publishing practices by integrating peer review mechanisms and adherence to established scholarly norms.

- MAMIDALA JAGADESH KUMAR

Amid growing concerns over the proliferation of predatory journals that lacked rigorous quality control, the University Grants Commission (UGC) introduced the UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics) list in 2018. The purpose was to introduce a structured mechanism for validating journals so that prospective researchers can publish in them fully confident about their scholarly merit.

Soon, however, it became apparent that evaluating journal quality is a complex and dynamic process, shaped by diverse academic perspectives defining research engagement. Scholars interact with knowledge in unique ways. Defining journal quality in absolute terms is not a one-dimensional process. Besides, over-centralization in curating a fixed list of journals by the UGC-CARE scheme has led to significant unintended consequences.

Issues associated with fairness and effectiveness will be central to any fixed list of journals when implemented across multiple disciplines. The UGC-CARE scheme, established to uphold research integrity, has encountered substantial criticism, particularly from scholars in non-STEM fields, who contend that its evaluation framework does not fully accommodate the distinct nature of their research.