What Actually Changed
Across several years, a single question carried the most weight for Indian researchers: does the UGC-CARE list include this journal? Answering it decided if a paper would be accepted for a PhD requirement, an API score or a promotion case.
That shortcut is gone in the form researchers knew. The approach of a centrally maintained list has been withdrawn, and the duty of judging a journal has moved back to institutions and researchers, who are guided by stated parameters instead of a register of names. This asks for a little more effort, but it makes your choice of journal more deliberate.
The Reasons Behind the List's Withdrawal
A central whitelist has a built-in weakness: it becomes the target. When one list decides what counts, effort moves from doing good research to getting onto the list, and a market develops around it.
- Gaming. Journals tuned to the listing criteria instead of to quality, and some paid intermediaries to assist.
- Cloning. Fraudulent websites copied the titles and ISSNs of listed journals in order to catch authors and their fees.
- Volume. Centrally assessing and reassessing thousands of titles in every discipline is slow and can never be up to date.
- False comfort. Researchers no longer evaluated journals themselves because the list seemed to have done so for them.
- Blunt outcomes. A yes-or-no listed/not-listed verdict served some fields poorly, particularly regional-language and interdisciplinary scholarship.
None of this means the underlying concern went away. Poor-quality and exploitative journals are still a genuine problem; only the method of dealing with it has changed.
What Replaced It
Rather than a register of approved names, the approach is now a group of parameters, meaning characteristics a credible peer-reviewed journal ought to demonstrate. A journal is assessed on those characteristics and not on whether it is on a list.
| Old model | Current approach |
|---|---|
| Search for the title on a list | Evaluate the journal against stated parameters |
| Two outcomes only: listed or not listed | Judgement based on evidence, with reasons |
| Central body decides | The institution and researcher decide, with criteria as guidance |
| A single answer for all disciplines | Allowance for differences between disciplines and languages |
| Status could be claimed through a badge | Every characteristic has to be independently checkable |
This means more effort for the researcher, but also more honesty. A journal that meets the parameters can show you why; one that does not cannot shelter behind a listing.
What This Means for You
For PhD scholars
Your own university's rules decide what counts toward your degree. Ask your research office, in writing, what it requires now; some institutions keep their own approved lists, some defer to particular databases and some assess case by case. Do this before you submit, not afterwards.
For faculty seeking promotion
Promotion criteria are laid down by your institution and its statutory framework. Keep dated evidence of the journal's characteristics from the time you published (the site's description of peer review, its charges page, its indexing statement), since an assessment panel can examine that evidence later.
If your paper is already in a listed journal
Your article stays published and citable. What changes is how an institution gives credit for it from now on, which is the institution's decision and not the journal's.
At-a-Glance Checklist
- Notice read16 July 2025
- Parameters appliedTo your shortlist
- Institution askedIn writing
- Old claims ignored"CARE listed in 2026"
- Evidence keptFor your file
How JMVRA Measures Up to UGC’s 35 Suggested Parameters
Sorted into 8 categories, the 35 parameters in UGC’s 16 July 2025 notice (final Annexure-I) supersede the February 2025 draft's 36. JMVRA's tally is 28 met, 2 partly met, 3 not published and 2 not applicable; for each one, a reason is supplied.
Source: UGC public notice on CARE journals (PDF) · JMVRA & UGC parameters gives the full account.
Judging a Journal Today
These are the characteristics that credible assessment frameworks regularly look for, and each can be checked within minutes.
- A registered ISSN that you can confirm in the official register, not simply one printed on the journal's own page
- An identifiable editorial board whose affiliations are real and verifiable, and a named editor
- A documented peer review process set out in specific terms rather than a single vague sentence
- Published ethics policies that deal with plagiarism, authorship, conflicts, corrections and retractions
- Open fee information given prior to submission, with payment due solely once an independent decision exists
- An unbroken publication record which you can examine one issue at a time
- Persistent identifiers — a DOI that really resolves
- Verifiable indexing claims, checked on each service's own website and not from a logo
- No misleading metrics — no impact factor stated unless its source and year are given
- No solicitation — no uninvited messages that promise acceptance or fast turnaround
When a journal falls short on several of these points, that tells you plenty, no matter which list it was once part of. The fuller checklist is in Warning Signs of a Predatory or Cloned Journal.
Consult Your Institution First
Of all the steps, this is the most useful and the one people skip most often. A journal has no way of promising that your university, funder or promotion committee will accept a paper printed there; only those bodies can decide. Getting that answer first spares you from costly surprises later.
- Write to your research office and request the present requirement in writing.
- Find out whether they keep their own list, rely on a named database, or judge each case separately.
- Ask which proof about the journal they want you to keep on file.
- Save their response. Rules shift over time, so an answer carrying a date offers you protection.
Mistakes to Avoid
| Mistake | Why it hurts you |
|---|---|
| Depending on a screenshot of an outdated list | It records a situation that no longer holds |
| Taking a "peer-reviewed" badge at face value | A badge is only a picture and proves nothing |
| Using outside copies of the list | Unofficial versions are often edited or out of date |
| Presuming that indexing means recognition | Each is judged separately, using different criteria |
| Deciding after submission | After publication, the work cannot be sent to another journal |
| Paying before checking | Money paid to an exploitative publisher is seldom returned |
For Faculty Preparing Promotion Files
- Record every paper — including its journal, ISSN and link
- Include proof of review — reviewer comments and decision letters
- Write down the journal’s policies — on review, ethics and fees
- Use your institution’s layout — together with its current criteria
JMVRA’s Statement
Adjusting Your Publishing Plan After the List Was Withdrawn
When a familiar reference list disappears, many scholars feel unsure about older advice. These practical adjustments help you move forward calmly while institutions and departments settle on how they now assess journals.
- Ask your department in writing. Send a short email asking which journal checks your department currently expects, and keep the reply. A written answer protects you if requirements are interpreted differently later.
- Retire outdated advice quietly. Old forum posts and seniors' recommendations may still describe the earlier system. Cross-check anything you hear against recent official notices before you act on it.
- Build a personal evidence file. Save screenshots of the journal's policies, board page and review description on the day you submit. Rules and websites change, and a dated record shows what you relied on.
- Prepare promotion files early. Faculty should gather journal evidence while writing, rather than hunting for it when a promotion form is due. Organised proof saves stress and avoids rushed explanations.
Confirm current expectations with your own institution in writing, then document your journal checks as you go instead of reconstructing them later.
Questions Researchers Often Ask
Ready to Publish? Submit to JMVRA
JMVRA is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
JMVRA is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Following the discontinuation of the UGC and UGC-CARE journal listing, and in alignment with the latest UGC-CARE recommendations and guidelines, JMVRA is aligned with UGC’s Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals.
Where to go next on jmvra.org
Key Terms
Subjects and search phrases this article addresses.
Keep Reading on the JMVRA Blog
Find this guide on the JMVRA journal blog, a collection of practical guidance on publishing, indexing, metrics and research integrity that favours verifiable content over promotion.
Related Reading
Further reading on the same theme from the JMVRA blog.