UGC-CARE is discontinued: the complete guide to publishing in India in 2026

For roughly a decade, the University Grants Commission's CARE list — the Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics — was the reflex answer to a single anxious question every Indian researcher asks: is this journal acceptable? You looked up the name, and the list decided. In 2025 that machinery was dismantled. The change was not a temporary outage or a website glitch, as many first assumed; it was a deliberate shift in how India governs the quality of the journals its scholars publish in. Understanding it properly matters, because the vacuum it left is being actively exploited by outlets claiming an approval that no longer exists.

What exactly happened, and when

The decision took shape in stages. According to the UGC's own public communications, 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 with a notice dated 11 February 2025. The Commission then developed a replacement framework — the Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals — which it approved at its 595th meeting on 24 June 2025, after considering feedback from stakeholders, and notified through a public notice on 16 July 2025. In other words, this was a considered, year-long transition, not an accident: the list was retired and something structurally different was put in its place.

The distinction that trips people up is that the CARE list was a lookup — a name either was or was not on it — whereas the Suggestive Parameters are a method. There is no longer any central list in which a journal's name can be found and thereby declared safe. That is the single most important thing to absorb, because every practical consequence below flows from it.

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. Rather than naming approved journals, they describe the characteristics a sound peer-reviewed journal should display and invite the researcher or institution to check a candidate journal against them. Thematically, the criteria span the qualities that genuinely distinguish scholarly venues: the transparency and integrity of the editorial and peer-review process; adherence to recognised publication ethics; openness about policies, ownership and charges; the journal's indexing and scholarly standing; and the accessibility and verifiability of what it publishes.

Because the exact wording and the full set of sub-parameters matter for anyone applying them formally — and because reputable summaries differ slightly on the precise count of sub-parameters — we treat the detailed, clause-by-clause breakdown in a dedicated companion piece rather than paraphrasing it loosely here. For any official use, read the parameters directly from the UGC's own notification; our plain-English walkthrough of all eight criteria — and the honest 35-versus-36 sub-parameter question is the right place for the detail. The essential point for this overview is what the framework is: a rubric you apply, not a register you search.

The frozen 1,474-journal list

One artefact of the old system survives, and it causes enormous confusion, so be precise about it. The UGC has retained a frozen list of 1,474 journals, reflecting the CARE list as it stood on 10 February 2025, and made it available for referencing purposes only. Critically, the Commission has stated in plain terms that this list is a reference resource and that the inclusion or exclusion of a journal in it does not imply validation or endorsement. It is a historical snapshot, not a live approval list. Treating a journal as "safe because it is on the frozen list" is a misreading of exactly what the UGC said the list is not. Use it, at most, as one weak historical signal — never as a verdict.

Who decides now

If there is no central list, who says yes? The answer is deliberate decentralisation. Responsibility has moved to higher education institutions and individual researchers, who are now expected to evaluate journals themselves — using the Suggestive Parameters together with established, independent benchmarks. In practice this means your university, your department, or your doctoral committee may set its own expectations, and those expectations can differ from one institution to the next. It also means the burden of the final judgement, on the day you choose where to submit, sits with you. That is more work than a lookup, but it is also more robust, because a genuine assessment of a journal cannot be gamed the way a place on a list can.

How to choose a journal in the new system

The good news is that the method that replaces the list is one careful researchers everywhere already use, and it is free. Confirm the journal is genuinely indexed where it claims to be — Scopus or the Web of Science Master Journal List for most fields, and the Directory of Open Access Journals for open-access titles — checked directly at the source rather than trusting a badge. Confirm it has a real, traceable publication history, with articles carrying working DOIs and editors who genuinely exist. And read the journal's conduct coldly for the familiar warning signs. This is precisely the workflow we set out, step by step, in our complete guide to identifying a predatory or cloned journal, and you can run several of the checks instantly with our free Predatory Journal Risk Checker. In the post-CARE era, indexing at a recognised source plus a clean provenance and conduct check is a stronger warrant than a list ever was. If Scopus is your target, our full Scopus publication guide walks the whole process end to end.

Why "UGC-CARE approved" is now a red flag

This point deserves its own heading because it is the most exploited confusion of 2026. Since the CARE list was discontinued with effect from 11 February 2025, there is no current "UGC-CARE approved" status for any journal to hold. A journal that advertises itself as "UGC-CARE approved" today is therefore claiming a status that does not exist. At best it is trading on outdated language; at worst it is deliberately exploiting the transition to appear legitimate to scholars who have not caught up with the change. Either way, the claim tells you something useful about the journal's honesty. When you see it, do not be reassured — be alert, and run the real checks.

What it means for PhD scholars and faculty

For research scholars and faculty, the practical questions are about degrees, promotions and accreditation, and here the honest answer is that the specifics now depend on your institution and the prevailing UGC regulations rather than on a national list. Where publication is expected — for a doctoral programme, for career advancement, or for an institution's own accreditation file — the venue you choose must stand up to the Suggestive Parameters and to indexing scrutiny, because that is what an assessing committee can now verify. The safest posture is to confirm your institution's current expectations directly, choose venues with unambiguous indexing at a recognised source, and keep your own documentation clean. The list is gone; verifiable quality is what remains, and it is what protects you.

How I advise scholars to adapt

When scholars ask me how worried they should be about the end of UGC-CARE, I tell them the change is uncomfortable but healthy, and that the skill it demands is one they can learn in an afternoon. The researchers who struggle are the ones still looking for a replacement list to trust; the ones who adapt quickly are the ones who accept that verification is now theirs to do and learn to do it at the source. In my own work, choosing a target journal has always meant confirming its indexing myself, reading its recent issues, and weighing its scope against the paper — the very habits the Suggestive Parameters now formalise for everyone. If anything, the new framework rewards exactly the careful, evidence-first approach that serious research always required.

Choosing a journal under the new parameters, or setting a departmental policy for your institution after UGC-CARE? Journal strategy and institutional policy support are part of what we do. You can also check a specific title now with the free Predatory Journal Risk Checker.

Frequently asked questions

What replaced the UGC-CARE list in 2026?

The UGC replaced the CARE approved-journal list with a framework called the Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals, approved at its 595th meeting on 24 June 2025 and notified on 16 July 2025. Grouped under eight broad criteria, it is not a lookup list but a set of standards a researcher or institution is expected to apply to each journal individually.

What is the frozen list of 1,474 journals for?

The UGC has retained a frozen reference list of 1,474 journals as it stood on 10 February 2025, for referencing purposes only. The Commission has stated that inclusion in, or exclusion from, this list does not imply validation or endorsement, so it cannot be used as an approval list.

A journal still advertises 'UGC-CARE approved' — what does that mean now?

There is no current "UGC-CARE approved" status for any journal, because the list was discontinued with effect from 11 February 2025. A journal that advertises such approval in 2026 is misrepresenting its standing, which is itself a warning sign about the journal.

Who decides which journals are acceptable now?

Responsibility has been decentralised. In place of a single national list, higher education institutions and individual researchers are now expected to assess journals themselves against the UGC Suggestive Parameters and established indexing benchmarks such as Scopus and the Web of Science Master Journal List.

Sources and further reading: UGC public notice discontinuing the CARE list (effective 11 February 2025; decision taken at the 584th UGC meeting, 3 October 2024) and the Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals, approved at the 595th UGC meeting (24 June 2025) and notified 16 July 2025, with the eight criteria set out in the Annexure; the frozen reference list of 1,474 journals (as on 10 February 2025); the Scopus source list (Elsevier); the Web of Science Master Journal List (Clarivate); and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Dates and figures are drawn from these public sources; reputable summaries differ slightly on the exact number of sub-parameters, so for any official use confirm the wording directly in the UGC notification. Compiled with care; verify any decisive detail at the primary source on the day you act.