UGC-CARE list discontinued in 2025: official status and the 2026 publishing guide
The UGC-CARE list was discontinued through a notice dated 11 February 2025. This guide separates the live policy position from the frozen historical list, explains the Suggestive Parameters and shows what researchers and institutions should verify before relying on a journal.
From 2019 until 2025, the University Grants Commission's CARE list—the Consortium for Academic Research and Ethics—became the standard lookup used by many Indian researchers and institutions when assessing journals. In 2025 that list was retired. The change was not a temporary outage: it was a shift from central list-based checking towards documented journal assessment. Understanding the distinction matters because historical CARE language is still used in journal marketing and can easily be mistaken for current approval.
What exactly happened, and when
The decision took shape in stages. The UGC's notice records that the move to discontinue the CARE list was taken at the Commission's 584th meeting on 3 October 2024, on the basis of expert recommendations, and the list was not updated after October 2024. The discontinuation took formal effect through a notice dated 11 February 2025. The Commission then approved the final Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals at its 591st meeting on 24 June 2025 and issued them through a public notice on 16 July 2025.
The essential distinction is that the CARE list was a lookup, whereas the Suggestive Parameters are a method. A journal can no longer be treated as acceptable merely because its name appears in a current UGC-CARE register; the assessment has to be made from evidence and in accordance with the institution's present rules.
What the Suggestive Parameters are
The Suggestive Parameters are a structured set of standards set out in the Annexure to the July 2025 notification and organised under eight broad criteria and 35 numbered sub-parameters. Rather than naming approved journals, they describe characteristics that a sound peer-reviewed journal should display and invite the researcher or institution to check a candidate journal against them.
The final July notice is the controlling source. An earlier February draft contained 36 numbered items, which explains why some secondary summaries still report 36. The final version contains 35: it omits the draft's separate “Online Availability” item under Journal Standards and renumbers the remaining entries. Our companion guide explains the eight criteria, 35 final checks and the draft-versus-final difference.
The frozen 1,474-journal list
One artefact of the old system survives and is frequently misunderstood. The UGC retained a frozen list of 1,474 journals reflecting the CARE list as it stood on 10 February 2025, for reference purposes. The Commission stated that inclusion or exclusion does not imply validation or endorsement. It is therefore a historical snapshot, not a live approval list. At most, it can be recorded as one historical data point; it cannot replace present verification.
Who decides now
Without a central list, responsibility rests more directly with higher education institutions and individual researchers. Universities, departments and doctoral committees may issue their own written expectations, and those requirements can differ. The safest approach is to obtain the current institutional rule, apply the UGC parameters where relevant and document every external verification used to support the final decision.
How to choose a journal in the new system
Begin with checkable evidence. Confirm the exact title, ISSN/eISSN and publisher. Verify indexing directly in recognised primary sources such as Scopus Sources, the Web of Science Master Journal List or the Directory of Open Access Journals, rather than trusting a logo on the journal's website. Check whether coverage is current, inspect the publication history and DOI records, identify the editors, read the peer-review and ethics policies and compare stated turnaround times and charges with actual journal conduct.
This source-first sequence is set out in our guide to identifying a predatory or cloned journal. You can also inspect several external records in the free Journal Evidence Checker. A recognised index alone does not guarantee suitability, but documented provenance, current coverage, ethical conduct and scope fit provide a stronger basis than an outdated approval claim.
How to treat a current “UGC-CARE approved” claim
A current claim of “UGC-CARE approved” requires scrutiny because the live list was discontinued in 2025. The wording may refer to historical inclusion, may simply be outdated or may be misleading. Do not accept it at face value. Ask for the exact source and date, distinguish the frozen historical list from a current approval claim, verify the journal independently and confirm what the relevant institution presently accepts.
What it means for PhD scholars and faculty
For research scholars and faculty, the practical consequences concern doctoral requirements, appointments, promotions and institutional evaluation. The exact rule depends on the prevailing regulations and the institution's current written policy. Confirm that policy before submission, choose venues whose identity and indexing can be independently verified, and preserve a dated evidence record showing what was checked. That record is more defensible than a screenshot of an old list or an unsupported journal badge.
How I advise scholars to adapt
When scholars ask what replaces the old certainty of a list, I recommend a repeatable verification workflow rather than another shortcut. Confirm the source records, read recent issues, assess scope and editorial conduct, save the evidence and ask the institution to confirm any rule that remains ambiguous. These habits were already part of responsible journal selection; the post-CARE framework makes them more explicit and more important.
Building a journal-assessment workflow for a department or institution?
Gurjas can translate the UGC parameters and primary-source checks into a documented journal-screening procedure, evidence register and escalation pathway without issuing approval guarantees.
Frequently asked questions
When was the UGC-CARE list discontinued?
The discontinuation took effect through a UGC notice dated 11 February 2025. The CARE list had ceased to be updated after October 2024.
What replaced the UGC-CARE list?
The UGC introduced Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals. They are an assessment framework rather than a new lookup list, so each journal must be evaluated and current institutional requirements must also be confirmed.
What is the frozen list of 1,474 journals for?
The frozen list records the CARE list as it stood on 10 February 2025 for reference. Inclusion or exclusion does not imply validation or endorsement, so the document should not be treated as a current approval list.
Can a journal still claim to be UGC-CARE approved?
A current claim requires scrutiny because the live list was discontinued in 2025. It may refer to historical inclusion or may be misleading. Verify the source and date, check current indexing and confirm the institution's present rule.
Primary policy documents: the UGC public notice dated 11 February 2025, the final UGC public notice and Annexure dated 16 July 2025, and the frozen list of 1,474 journals as on 10 February 2025. The final July Annexure contains 35 numbered sub-parameters across eight criteria; the February draft contained 36. Consult the relevant institution for the current rule that applies to a degree, appointment, promotion or evaluation. Compiled with care; verify decisive details at the primary source on the day you act.