– Richa Mittal*
(Samaj Weekly)- In the realm of academia, the pursuit of knowledge and the dissemination of research findings are pivotal. Central to this endeavor is the publication of research articles in reputable journals, providing a platform for scholars to share their insights with the world. However, recent revelations regarding the UGC CARE indexing services in India have cast a shadow on this essential process. For the past four years, authors and institutions have found themselves navigating a complex maze created by the University Grants Commission (UGC). A mandate was issued, making it mandatory to publish articles exclusively in journals listed on the UGC CARE list. While the intention behind this move was to enhance the quality of publications, the execution has raised numerous questions.
The process of gaining approval for inclusion in the UGC CARE list is a multi-tiered one, involving an intricate web of institutions. Journals seeking inclusion must first be submitted by the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) of an institution. From there, they are sent to four zonal institutions in the northern region, including prestigious institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Finally, these journals make their way to the UGC CARE unit at Savitribai Phule University, where a committee assesses and approves them.
What’s intriguing is the apparent disparity in this process. Journals indexed in Scopus by a US-based agency enjoy direct entry into the UGC CARE list, bypassing the rigorous scrutiny applied to others. This has led to a rush toward Scopus indexing, despite the hefty costs involved, ranging from $300 to $4,000 per article. Authors and institutions, left with limited alternatives, have been burdened by the financial strain.
However, the revelations don’t end there. Recent findings from Right to Information (RTI) inquiries have exposed a lack of transparency, undisclosed criteria for journal approval, and questions about the qualifications of the empowered committee. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has weighed in on the matter, directing the UGC to provide information on journals received and selected for the UGC CARE list [1].
The CIC’s observations are noteworthy. It emphasizes that information should be easily accessible, preferably in electronic format. Under Section 4 of the RTI Act, public authorities are obligated to publish essential information, particularly on the internet. This duty extends to the UGC, requiring them to disclose information about journal selection guidelines and the list of rejected journals with the reasons.
In the interest of transparency, academic integrity, and the larger public interest, we call on the UGC to fulfill its obligation and provide comprehensive information about the UGC CARE indexing services on their official website. The academic community, authors, and institutions deserve transparency, and it is our collective responsibility to uphold the principles of openness and fairness.
As the light of transparency shines upon the UGC CARE indexing services, it is our hope that this scrutiny will lead to positive reforms, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge remains uncompromised and open to all.
[1] CIC decisions case Id: CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/660648
(*Richa Mittal, Advocate Delhi High Court, is a distinguished professional with a multifaceted background as an economist and advocate practicing at the Delhi High Court. Her extensive expertise in both the legal and economic domains has positioned her as a leading authority in navigating the intricate intersection of law and economics. With a profound commitment to justice and a keen analytical mind, Richa has made remarkable contributions to the legal and economic landscape in India. Email: [email protected])
