UGC Suggestive Parameters explained: the eight criteria in plain English

When the UGC retired the CARE list, it did not leave researchers with nothing — it left them with a method. The Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals are that method: a structured set of standards, published as an Annexure to the UGC's public notice, that you apply to a journal instead of looking its name up on a list. This piece is the detailed companion to our overview of publishing in India after UGC-CARE, and its aim is narrow and useful — to explain what the parameters actually say, in plain language, while being scrupulously honest about the points on which published sources disagree.

A note on sourcing. The authoritative text is the UGC public notice on Suggestive Parameters, dated 16 July 2025. Where secondary summaries paraphrase the criteria differently — and they do — we say so plainly rather than presenting one paraphrase as definitive. For anything you rely on formally, read the notification itself.

Where these came from

The sequence matters for understanding the parameters' status. The UGC's decision to discontinue the CARE list was taken at its 584th meeting on 3 October 2024; the list ceased to be maintained after October 2024 and the discontinuation took effect by a notice dated 11 February 2025. A committee then framed the replacement, which the Commission approved at its 595th meeting on 24 June 2025 after stakeholder feedback, and notified through a public notice on 16 July 2025. The word in the title — suggestive — is deliberate. This is guidance to inform judgement, applied by institutions and researchers, not a pass/fail gate administered centrally.

The eight criteria, in plain English

The parameters are organised under eight broad criteria. That grouping into eight is consistent across the notification and the credible summaries of it; the exact headings, however, are worded slightly differently from one summary to the next, so treat the plain-English descriptions below as a faithful sense of each area rather than the verbatim official label. In substance, the eight cover:

1. Journal preliminaries and identity — the basics that a genuine journal always has in order: a valid ISSN, a clear publisher and ownership, a stated aims-and-scope, and transparent contact and publication details.
2. Editorial board — a real, qualified board with identifiable experts in the journal's field, whose affiliations and credentials are disclosed rather than merely asserted.
3. Editorial policy and peer review — a clearly described, genuine peer-review process, with transparent editorial policies rather than a vague promise of review.
4. Quality of published content — the standard of the articles the journal actually publishes, judged on scholarly merit rather than volume.
5. Research and publication ethics — adherence to recognised ethical norms: plagiarism checks, conflict-of-interest disclosure, correction and retraction practices, and related integrity safeguards.
6. Journal standards and regularity — consistent, timely publication and orderly operation, as opposed to erratic or suspiciously rapid output.
7. Visibility and indexing — the journal's reach and standing, including indexing in recognised databases and genuine accessibility to the research community.
8. Relevance and impact — the journal's disciplinary relevance and its demonstrable scholarly influence within its field.

Read together, these describe exactly the qualities careful researchers already weigh: is the journal real and transparent, is its review genuine, is its content sound, does it behave ethically, and is it recognised where recognition can be independently checked. The parameters formalise that instinct into a shared reference.

The 35-versus-36 question, honestly

You will see the sub-parameters beneath these eight criteria counted differently in different places, and it is better to be candid about that than to pick a number and pretend to certainty. Many secondary summaries report 36 sub-parameters; a close reading of the official Annexure-I has also been described as yielding 35; and some early coverage referred loosely to "over thirty" indicators. What is not in dispute is the structure of eight broad criteria and the substance of what they assess. If a precise count matters for a formal document — an institutional policy, an accreditation file, a committee submission — do not rely on any secondary summary, including this one: open the UGC notification of 16 July 2025 and count against the primary text. We flag the discrepancy rather than paper over it, because on a compliance question the honest answer is more useful than a confident one.

How to actually apply them

The parameters are most useful read as a checklist you run against a specific journal, in the order that fails fastest. Start with the checkable externals — is the journal genuinely indexed at a recognised source such as Scopus or the Web of Science Master Journal List, does it have a valid ISSN, does it carry real DOIs — because a failure here settles the matter before you weigh anything subjective. Then assess the board, the peer-review description and the ethics statements for substance rather than presence. This is the same source-first workflow we set out step by step in our guide to identifying a predatory or cloned journal, and you can run several of the checks instantly with the free Predatory Journal Risk Checker. The parameters give you the criteria; verification at the source gives you the answers.

How I use the parameters in practice

I treat the eight criteria less as a scorecard to total up and more as a sequence of questions in descending order of how quickly they can end the discussion. In practice, indexing and provenance do most of the work: if a journal is not genuinely indexed where it should be, or its DOIs and ISSN do not check out, the remaining criteria rarely matter. What the parameters add, and where I find them genuinely valuable, is the discipline of also looking hard at the things a predatory journal can fake on the surface — the board, the stated review process, the ethics policies — and asking whether they hold up under a second look. The framework rewards exactly the habits that serious publishing always demanded; it simply writes them down so that everyone, and every committee, is working from the same reference.

Setting a departmental journal policy under the new parameters, or deciding whether a specific journal clears them for your paper? Journal strategy and institutional policy support are part of what we do. You can also check a title now with the free Predatory Journal Risk Checker.

Frequently asked questions

How many parameters are in the UGC Suggestive Parameters?

The parameters are organised under eight broad criteria. The total number of sub-parameters is reported inconsistently: many secondary summaries state 36, while a close reading of the official Annexure-I has also been described as yielding 35. The eight criteria are firm; for any formal use, confirm the exact wording and count in the UGC public notice dated 16 July 2025.

Do the Suggestive Parameters replace the UGC-CARE list?

Yes. The UGC discontinued the CARE approved-journal list with effect from 11 February 2025 and introduced the Suggestive Parameters, approved at its 595th meeting on 24 June 2025 and notified on 16 July 2025, as the replacement. Unlike the old list, the parameters are a rubric each researcher and institution applies to a journal, not a register to look a journal up in.

Are the UGC Suggestive Parameters mandatory?

They are framed as suggestive guidance for choosing journals rather than a single binding checklist, and responsibility for applying them rests with higher education institutions and individual researchers. Because institutions may set their own expectations on top of the parameters, confirm your university's current policy directly.

Where can I read the official UGC Suggestive Parameters?

The authoritative source is the UGC public notice on Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals, dated 16 July 2025, published on the UGC website (ugc.gov.in). Secondary summaries paraphrase the criteria differently, so for official use rely on the notification itself.

Primary source: University Grants Commission, Public Notice on "Suggestive Parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals" (F. No. 1-1/2018(CARE/JOURNAL)), dated 16 July 2025, with the criteria set out in Annexure-I; and the related UGC communications discontinuing the UGC-CARE list (decision at the 584th UGC meeting, 3 October 2024; effective 11 February 2025) and the frozen reference list of 1,474 journals (as on 10 February 2025). The grouping into eight criteria is consistent across sources; the exact sub-parameter count is reported inconsistently (commonly 36; a close reading of Annexure-I has also been described as 35), and the plain-English headings above are faithful summaries, not verbatim official labels — for any formal use, rely on the UGC notification itself at ugc.gov.in. Compiled with care; verify decisive details at the primary source on the day you act.