UGC-CARE Criteria and How JMVRA Addresses Them

What UGC CARE Really Assesses

UGC CARE — the Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics — was set up by the University Grants Commission because the older, informal "UGC-approved journal list" had grown unreliable, letting predatory and low-quality journals through. CARE listing was no formality; it meant evaluation against a defined set of parameters meant to distinguish genuinely peer-reviewed, ethically run journals from ones that only appear legitimate. Understanding that difference helps authors judge any journal, listed or not.

This article walks through what CARE actually checks, parameter by parameter, and shows how JMVRA (ISSN 2984-8911) meets each requirement, with pointers on how you as an author can verify every claim yourself instead of trusting any journal's word, ours included.

The Formal UGC CARE Parameters

Parameter	What It Checks
ISSN Validity	An authentic ISSN, presently registered with the International ISSN Centre, and not one that has expired or been made up.
Editorial Board Disclosure	Actual, named editorial board members whose institutional affiliations can be verified and are publicly listed.
Open-Process Peer Review	A documented review process in which the method of review and, since 2023, reviewer feedback is revealed to authors.
Publication Regularity	A steady record of issue-by-issue publication with no unexplained gaps.
Anti-Plagiarism Policy	A declared similarity threshold, plus evidence that submissions are genuinely screened against it.
Ethics Compliance	Conformity with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidance covering who counts as an author, competing interests and how misconduct is dealt with.
No Predatory Indicators	No guarantee of acceptance, no invented impact metrics and no opaque or excessive fee structures.

Point by Point: How JMVRA Complies

A blanket statement such as "we meet all UGC CARE criteria" proves little, so the list below shows exactly how JMVRA fulfils every parameter:

Governance and Openness of the Editorial Board

A frequent way of exposing a predatory operation is an editorial board that cannot be verified: names without institutional affiliation, affiliations that never answer queries, or members who say when contacted that they never agreed to serve. UGC CARE specifically tests for this, and it is one of the easiest things for an author to check before submitting to any journal.

The editorial board of JMVRA is published with individual names and their institutions, and anyone is free to verify them independently. If a point is unclear, authors can email [email protected] with their question.

The Requirement for Transparent Peer Review

In 2023, UGC CARE formally put an Open-Process Peer Review requirement into its eligibility criteria: journals must not only review manuscripts but also disclose how the review took place. JMVRA's process is double-blind assignment (author and reviewer identities are hidden from each other), at least two independent reviewers per manuscript, and anonymised reviewer comments given to the author together with the final decision.

Ethics and Safeguards Against Predatory Practice

UGC CARE evaluation also looks for classic warning signs of predatory journals: guaranteed acceptance whatever the quality, invented or misleadingly labelled impact metrics, opaque or ballooning fee structures, and absent or fake peer review. JMVRA's policies are designed specifically to avoid each of these:

• No guarantee of acceptance — manuscripts are rejected or returned for revision if they fail plagiarism screening or peer review.
• Its Impact Factor of 11.25 is clearly disclosed as Google Scholar-based and not a Scopus/Clarivate JCR figure; the dedicated Impact Factor explainer gives the full methodology.
• One published, fixed fee (₹971 INR / $41 USD), and the base publication cost carries no concealed add-ons.
• An ethics policy aligned with COPE that covers authorship disputes, conflicts of interest and the handling of misconduct.

Reasons Certain Journals Do Not Pass CARE Review

Knowing why journals are rejected or dropped from the CARE list is useful to authors assessing any journal, not only JMVRA. Typical reasons are:

Common Failure Reason	The Reason It Rules a Journal Out
Hidden or fabricated editorial board	Editorial decisions are unaccountable, and nobody can verify that review takes place
Peer review process not documented	Does not meet the central transparency requirement introduced in 2023
Uneven publication record with gaps	Implies the journal is not stable in its operations
Acceptance that is guaranteed or almost immediate	Shows that the review is for show rather than genuine
Fabricated impact metrics	Gives a false picture of the journal's true academic standing

Ways to Check These Claims Yourself

Never accept a journal's description of itself without checking, and that includes this article. Here is how you can test each claim:

1. Read UGC's public notice: the UGC-CARE list has been discontinued, so there is no listing to search. Instead, compare the journal with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals and your institution's own rules.
2. Enter the ISSN into the official ISSN Portal and see whether it is valid and still registered.
3. Look up the named editorial board members on your own (institutional websites, ORCID, Google Scholar profiles) instead of relying only on the journal's own list.
4. Ask the editorial office directly how many reviewers assess each submission and whether reviewer feedback reaches authors.
5. Find out whether a claimed "impact factor" comes from Scopus/Clarivate or is Google Scholar-based; the two are computed in completely different ways and must never be confused.

A Recommended Checklist for Assessing Any Journal

Whether you are considering JMVRA or another journal, this checklist reflects the parameters UGC CARE actually evaluates and sets a sensible minimum standard before you submit or pay a fee:

• A valid ISSN that is currently active
• An editorial board with names that can be verified
• A peer review process that is documented and disclosed
• A regular publication record without unexplained gaps
• A published plagiarism/similarity threshold
• An ethics and authorship policy aligned with COPE
• A clear, flat fee structure without hidden charges
• An honest statement of what any "impact factor" is based on

At-a-Glance Checklist

1. Each criterion checkedWith evidence
2. Claims verifiedIndependently
3. List status knownDiscontinued
4. Parameters used nowUGC's suggestions
5. Checklist appliedTo any journal

Applying CARE-Style Criteria to Any Journal You Consider

Criteria are only useful when you apply them consistently and keep evidence. These habits help you turn a long list of expectations into a fair, repeatable assessment of any journal on your shortlist.

• Score every journal identically. Use the same questions for each candidate so that a polished website cannot hide weak practice. Consistency makes your comparison defensible when a supervisor or committee asks how you decided.
• Collect evidence, not impressions. For each criterion, note where you found proof, such as a policy page, an editorial board profile or a published article. Impressions fade, whereas saved evidence supports your decision later.
• Test the editorial board personally. Search a few board members independently and confirm their affiliations and recent work. A board that cannot be traced outside the journal's own pages deserves extra caution.
• Separate claims from verifiable facts. Treat statements written by the journal as claims until an independent source agrees. Where sources disagree, ask the editorial office politely and keep the reply with your notes.

Judge each journal against the same written criteria and keep the evidence, so your choice can be explained clearly to anyone who asks.

Questions Researchers Often Ask