The final UGC framework for choosing peer-reviewed journals contains eight broad criteria and 35 numbered sub-parameters. An earlier draft contained 36. This guide reconciles the two official documents and shows how to use the final framework without turning it into another simplistic approval list.
When the UGC retired the CARE list, it moved from a central lookup towards an evidence-based assessment method. The Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals describe what researchers and higher education institutions should examine in a journal. They do not name approved titles, issue a score or remove the need to verify the applicable institutional rule.
The UGC's decision to discontinue the CARE list was taken at its 584th meeting on 3 October 2024. The discontinuation notice dated 11 February 2025 included a draft set of parameters for stakeholder feedback. After considering that feedback, the Commission approved the final parameters at its 591st meeting on 24 June 2025 and issued them through a public notice dated 16 July 2025.
The July notice asks higher education institutions and faculty members to adhere to the parameters and suggests that institutions may establish internal mechanisms to evaluate journals. Because the framework is called “suggestive,” it should guide documented judgement rather than be converted into an unsupported automatic pass/fail score.
The final Annexure organises 35 numbered checks under the following eight headings. The descriptions below closely summarise the listed checks; consult the official Annexure for the controlling wording.
Journal title, print or online ISSN, publication regularity, publisher and contact details, transparent review policy, a secure professional domain, access and fee policy, repository integration and archival arrangements.
Names, affiliations and expertise of board members; appropriate subject composition; and an efficient editorial and review process with rigorous peer review and clear timelines.
Clearly stated aims, objectives and scope; subject areas; transparent article-processing charges; average publication timeline; and acceptance rate.
Academic contribution—including advancement of knowledge and policy relevance—and conformity of published articles to the journal's stated scope.
Bibliographic and citation quality, professional design, infographics and exhibits, citation record, print continuity where applicable, website quality and multilingual availability relevant to the Indian context.
Ethical guidance for authors, plagiarism prevention, disclosure of conflicts involving governance and publication participants, and a specific policy on AI-generated content.
An impact factor or similar factor where applicable, and indexation in recognised databases.
Self-citation score relative to peer journals, total citation rate compared with similar journals, and CiteScore over a specified period.
The discrepancy comes from comparing the official draft with the official final document. The February draft numbered 36 items and included a separate item called Online Availability under Journal Standards. In the final July Annexure, that separate item is absent and the remaining Journal Standards entries are renumbered, producing 35 final sub-parameters.
This is not merely a difference in how commentators count bullets. It is a draft-versus-final change visible in the two UGC notices. Secondary pages that state 36 may be repeating the consultation draft. For formal use, cite the final July notice and record that the applied framework contains 35 numbered checks.
Use the framework as an evidence register, not a memory test or a total score. Start with facts that can be independently checked: exact title, ISSN/eISSN, publisher, ownership, DOI history, issue regularity and current indexing. Save the primary-source record and date of verification. Then assess the editorial board, peer-review description, ethics policy, charges, recent content and correction practices.
A single critical failure can matter more than several superficial positives. A journal should not clear scrutiny merely because its website displays many policy pages. Conversely, the parameters do not state that every journal must appear in every commercial index. The judgement should distinguish mandatory identity and integrity controls from context-dependent visibility and impact evidence.
Our journal-verification guide gives a source-first sequence, and the free Journal Evidence Checker helps inspect several external records. Neither substitutes for the institution's current policy or a documented human decision.
An institutional process should identify who performs the assessment, which primary sources are accepted, how ambiguous or conflicting evidence is escalated, how often records are refreshed and who authorises the final decision. The outcome should record the journal, identifiers, evidence date, applicable programme or policy, supporting sources, unresolved limitations and decision owner.
A blank checklist without provenance is weak governance. A stronger system preserves the evidence behind every conclusion and makes clear that historical CARE inclusion, database indexing or a quartile is one signal—not a guarantee of ethical conduct, suitability or future acceptance.
I use the criteria as a sequence of controls rather than an additive score. Identity and provenance come first because they can expose a cloned or misrepresented title quickly. Current coverage, DOI history, publication regularity and editorial transparency follow. Only after those controls hold do I assess scope fit, content quality, visibility and impact. This order prevents attractive metrics or website claims from overriding a basic integrity failure.
Gurjas can convert the final UGC framework into a documented screening form, evidence register, reviewer instructions and escalation pathway tailored to an institution's current policy—without issuing approval guarantees.
The final Annexure dated 16 July 2025 contains 35 numbered sub-parameters across eight broad criteria.
The February 2025 consultation draft contained 36 numbered items. The final July Annexure removed the draft's separate Online Availability item and renumbered the remaining Journal Standards entries, leaving 35.
They replace the central list-based approach with an assessment framework. The UGC discontinued the CARE list in February 2025 and approved the final parameters at its 591st meeting on 24 June 2025 before issuing them on 16 July 2025.
The UGC calls them suggestive parameters and requests higher education institutions and faculty members to adhere to them. Institutions may establish their own internal mechanisms and additional current requirements, so the applicable written policy should be confirmed.
Cite the final UGC public notice and Annexure dated 16 July 2025. Use the February notice only when discussing the draft or the history of discontinuation.
Primary sources: the UGC public notice and consultation draft dated 11 February 2025, and the final UGC public notice and Annexure dated 16 July 2025. The final document records approval at the 591st UGC meeting on 24 June 2025 and contains 35 numbered sub-parameters across eight criteria. The draft contained 36 because it separately included Online Availability under Journal Standards. For decisions affecting degrees, appointments, promotions or institutional evaluation, also obtain the current written policy of the relevant institution.
