 |
|
The University Grants Commission (UGC) in India has made a significant and controversial decision: the withdrawal of its much-debated CARE list of approved journals. This move, ostensibly aimed at granting greater autonomy to higher education institutions (HEIs) in evaluating research publications, has sparked heated debate among academics, researchers, and administrators. The UGC replaced the list with suggestive parameters for selecting peer-reviewed journals, leaving the responsibility of journal selection and evaluation entirely to the HEIs. While some researchers welcome the shift, believing it will alleviate the constraints imposed by the previous restrictive list and address the issues of limited representation for regional languages and the inclusion of substandard journals, concerns abound regarding the potential consequences of this decentralized approach.
The previous UGC-CARE list faced numerous criticisms. The limited number of journals listed in certain fields, particularly those involving regional languages like Tamil, created significant hurdles for researchers. The dynamic and often unreliable nature of the list, where journals were added and removed frequently, led to publications becoming invalid unexpectedly. The vulnerability of the system to predatory and substandard journals, which could mimic legitimate publications, and the inclusion of print-only journals susceptible to cloning by cybercriminals highlighted critical flaws in the system. Moreover, the lack of a central repository of published articles made verifying the legitimacy of publications challenging. These problems significantly undermined the credibility and efficacy of the UGC-CARE list, causing widespread frustration among the academic community.
The transition to a system where HEIs independently evaluate journal quality presents several challenges. A lack of standardization could arise, with different institutions adopting varying criteria, leading to inconsistencies in faculty recruitment and promotion processes. The relationship between autonomous and affiliated colleges in implementing these new evaluation mechanisms requires careful consideration. The potential proliferation of numerous, disparate journal lists from individual universities poses a threat to the uniformity of academic publishing standards across the country. The interaction between this new approach and established accreditation agencies like NAAC, AICTE, and NBA also needs clarification, especially as their existing assessment frameworks rely on established metrics for research outputs. The conflict with the NIRF's emphasis on Scopus and Web of Science-indexed journals further complicates the landscape, potentially hindering India's progress in global research rankings.
The UGC's suggested parameters, while providing general guidelines, lack robust monitoring mechanisms, leaving the door open for predatory journals to manipulate their way onto institutional lists. This raises concerns about a potential return to the pre-2015 era, characterized by a rampant proliferation of predatory journals, unless HEIs are adequately equipped and trained to discern legitimate publications from illegitimate ones. The mere act of giving HEIs more autonomy doesn't automatically guarantee better outcomes, and there is a real risk that the quality of research and publication standards could decline without appropriate safeguards and support.
Critics argue that the UGC’s response is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Simply removing the existing system without implementing proper support mechanisms for HEIs is a risky gamble. The UGC needs to address the issue systemically, engaging stakeholders from universities and colleges to develop robust strategies for evaluating research publications and preventing the infiltration of predatory journals. This should include comprehensive training and resources for HEIs, enhancing their capacity to identify and evaluate journals effectively. Furthermore, mandating collaboration between academia and industry could create more opportunities for impactful research publication in reputable journals. The reliance on third-party curation for research quality assurance, particularly agencies like Clarivate Analytics, undermines the pursuit of independent high-quality publications.
The absence of a robust and proactive approach to prevent the circulation of predatory journals poses a serious risk to the integrity of Indian research. The UGC's action appears to be a shift of responsibility rather than a comprehensive solution. The underlying problems of capacity building, training, and ensuring quality control remain unaddressed. The reliance on HEIs to resolve these issues without adequate support is concerning, especially considering that many struggle with existing challenges related to identifying predatory journals and ensuring the quality of their research outputs. A more proactive approach involving substantial investments in faculty development, comprehensive training programs, and a robust monitoring system is crucial to prevent a decline in the overall quality of Indian research and its global standing. The UGC's decision to scrap the list might prove to be a historic mistake unless comprehensive measures are put in place to support the HEIs in their new responsibilities.
Source: UGC-CARE list scrapped: A move towards autonomy or a risky gamble?