The List Is Gone. Here Is How You Check a Journal Yourself.
When UGC withdrew the CARE List on 3 October 2024, the job of judging a journal moved from a
committee to you. This is the method — fourteen parameters, how to verify each one in
your own browser, the red flag that tells you to walk away, and what to do if you have already
published somewhere that now looks doubtful.
The UGC CARE Journal List was discontinued — not replaced by another list. In its place UGC published suggested parameters for identifying credible peer-reviewed journals, centred on transparency, research integrity and demonstrable peer review.
The practical effect is that the burden of judgement moved to you. Instead of checking a name against a spreadsheet, an author now assesses a journal against criteria that can be verified independently. That is a higher standard, not a lower one — and it is the reason this page exists.
Every one of these documents is reproduced in full on our UGC notices page, so you can read the originals rather than a summary.
28 November 2018
UGC issues the notice that leads to the CARE framework.
14 January 2019
UGC CARE notice; the Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics is established.
14 June 2019
The UGC-CARE List supersedes the earlier UGC Approved List of Journals.
3 October 2024
584th UGC Meeting: the UGC-CARE List is discontinued. No replacement list is created.
10 February 2025
A snapshot of 1,474 journals is retained as a reference archive — explicitly not an endorsement.
11 February 2025
UGC public notice confirming the discontinuation.
24 June 2025
UGC approves eight categories of suggestive parameters for selecting peer-reviewed journals, and confirms the 1,474-journal snapshot is for reference only.
16 July 2025
Further UGC public notice reconfirming the position.
Approved 24 June 2025
The Eight Official UGC Parameter Categories
This is the structure UGC actually approved. The fourteen practical checks in the next section are how you test a journal against these eight in a browser.
Journal preliminaries
A valid ISSN, a regular and honoured publishing schedule, a stated peer-review policy and a certified domain with a working website.
Editorial board
Named experts with verifiable academic credentials and full affiliation details — not a list of names without institutions.
Editorial policy
A clearly defined scope, transparent article processing charges, and acceptance and review timelines that are realistic rather than advertised as instant.
Content quality
Academic relevance, proper citation standards and substantive contribution in what the journal actually publishes.
Journal standards
Consistent structure, formatting, metadata and production quality across issues.
Research ethics
Plagiarism screening, an AI-use disclosure policy, and published positions on authorship, conflicts, corrections and retractions.
Journal visibility
Presence in recognised databases and discovery services, verifiable at the database rather than asserted on the journal’s own site.
Impact criteria
Citation performance and scholarly influence, described with the metric named and its provider stated.
The structure UGC approved
Eight Parameter Groups, One Journal
The same eight groups as a single picture: every check in the table further down belongs to one of these spokes.
Approved by UGC on 24 June 2025. The fourteen practical checks on this page test a journal against these eight groups; none of them needs a list, a number or a certificate.
Journal preliminaries
Editorial board
Editorial policy
Content quality
Journal standards
Research ethics
Journal visibility
Impact criteria
Note what is not in the eight: there is no list, no approval number and no certificate. UGC describes these as suggestive parameters — guidance for institutions and authors making their own judgement. Any journal, service or agent offering you a "UGC approval certificate" is selling a document UGC does not issue.
The structure of the old list
Group I, Group II & the Subject Divisions
Worth understanding because most university ordinances were written in this vocabulary, and many still are.
Group I
Journals found qualified through the UGC-CARE protocols — assessed directly by CARE against its own criteria.
Group II
Journals indexed in globally recognised databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, admitted on the strength of that coverage.
Before Group I and Group II there were four groups — A, B, C and D — which were consolidated into the two-group structure. The list itself was divided into four subject areas, classified using All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes, which are created and maintained by Scopus:
Sciences Social Sciences Arts and Humanities Multidisciplinary
The 1,474-journal archive. When UGC approved the parameters on 24 June 2025 it also confirmed that the snapshot of 1,474 journals as on 10 February 2025 would stay available for reference only. Inclusion in it is not validation, and exclusion from it is not condemnation. We reproduce that archive and embed every original notice on our UGC CARE list of journals page so you can read the source rather than a summary of it.
The method
The 14 Parameters — and How to Check Each One
Work down this table with the journal’s website open in another tab. Every check is free, and none of them requires you to contact the journal.
Parameter
How you verify it yourself
Red flag
Authentic ISSN
Search the ISSN on portal.issn.org and confirm the title returned matches the journal exactly.
The ISSN does not resolve, or resolves to a different title.
Clear periodicity
Open the archive and confirm issues actually appeared on the stated schedule for the last two years.
A "monthly" journal with gaps, or an archive that only starts this year.
Publisher authenticity
Look for a named publisher, a real postal address and a professional email domain.
A free email address, no address, or a publisher name that appears nowhere else.
Transparent peer review
Find the published review policy. It should name the model, who decides, and what reviewers assess.
"Peer reviewed" asserted with no policy page, or a promised review turnaround of days.
Domain and ownership
Check the site runs on HTTPS and that WHOIS ownership is not hidden behind a privacy proxy of recent registration.
A domain registered months ago for a journal claiming twenty years of issues.
Open access policy
Confirm what readers may do with the article, and under which licence.
"Open access" with no licence named anywhere.
Fee transparency
The full charge should be published before you submit, with the stage at which it falls due.
Fees revealed only after acceptance, or an invoice to a personal bank account.
Archival policy
Open an article from three years ago. It should still load at its original URL.
Dead links in the archive, or no archive at all.
Repository and discovery
Search a published title in Google Scholar and see whether the record exists.
Claimed indexing that returns nothing when you search for it.
Crossref DOI
Paste a published DOI into search.crossref.org and check the metadata matches the article.
A DOI that does not resolve, or metadata naming a different journal.
Plagiarism screening
The policy should state the tool, the threshold and what happens when a paper exceeds it.
No screening policy, or a threshold stated with no consequence attached.
Verified editorial board
Pick two editors and search their names with their stated affiliation.
Editors with no affiliation, no institutional page, or who do not know they are listed.
Honest metrics
Any impact metric should name its provider and methodology.
An "impact factor" from an organisation you cannot find, sold as a Clarivate equivalent.
Ethics framework
Look for authorship, conflict-of-interest, correction, retraction and AI-disclosure policies.
An ethics badge with nothing behind it, and no retraction procedure.
Scoring it. No journal has to pass all fourteen to be legitimate, and no single failure condemns one. What matters is the pattern: a credible journal fails the odd parameter for a boring reason it will explain. A predatory journal fails four or five at once, and the failures cluster around money, review and verifiability.
When you have no time
The Five-Minute Check
If you do nothing else before submitting, do these five. They catch the large majority of bad venues.
Resolve the ISSN
Search it on portal.issn.org. The title that comes back must match the journal exactly. This one check alone eliminates most cloned titles.
Follow a published DOI
Take any DOI from a recent article and paste it into search.crossref.org. It should resolve, and the metadata should name the same journal, authors and year.
Open something from three years ago
Go into the archive and open an old article. If the archive is thin, broken, or begins this year, the journal is not what it says it is.
Search two editors by name
Take two names from the editorial board and search each with its stated affiliation. Real editors have institutional pages. Invented ones do not.
Find the fee before you submit
The full charge and the stage at which it falls due should both be published. If you cannot find the number without emailing someone, that is the answer.
Avoidable
Six Mistakes Authors Keep Making
Treating an old screenshot as current proof
A 2022 CARE listing screenshot proves what was true in 2022. It is not evidence of anything today, and presenting it as current status is the problem, not the screenshot.
Trusting a logo instead of a database
Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ and Crossref logos are images. Any site can host one. The only evidence is the record in the database itself, found by ISSN.
Asking a colleague instead of the research section
Publication requirements differ by university, by programme and by admission year. The person two desks away may be working to a different ordinance than you are.
Paying before checking
Once the fee has left your account you have lost most of your leverage. Every check on this page is free and takes minutes.
Confusing a DOI with quality
A DOI is a persistent identifier. It says the article has stable metadata. It says nothing about peer review, and predatory journals register them too.
Choosing on turnaround time
A promise of review in 48 hours is a statement that no meaningful review happens. Speed is the single most reliable predatory signal.
The most-searched question
“Is There a UGC CARE List for My Subject?”
Commerce, management, education, English literature, law, pharmacy, engineering, social science — the subject-wise searches are the highest-volume UGC CARE queries there are. Here is the honest answer.
The old list was divided by subject, using the four ASJC-based divisions above, and you could filter it. That is why so many subject-specific lists circulate. But three things follow from the discontinuation that matter more than finding one of those lists:
No subject list is current. Every "UGC CARE journals for commerce 2026" page you find is either reproducing the February 2025 reference archive or inventing one. The first is legitimate as history; the second is not.
Subject fit is now judged the same way as everything else. Under the eight categories, whether a journal suits your discipline is part of content quality and editorial policy — does its scope cover your field, and do its recent issues actually carry work like yours? That is a question about the journal, not about a list.
A subject-specific journal is usually the better venue anyway. A specialist title in your field will reach the readers who cite you. Breadth of scope is not a quality signal, and an "all subjects" journal is sometimes a warning rather than a convenience.
So the practical method for any subject is unchanged: search the reference archive by ISSN if your institution asks about it, then run the fourteen checks above on whichever journals your own reference list already points you towards. The journals you cite most are usually the journals your work belongs in.
Since the list was withdrawn, institutions have restated their requirements in their own words, and they have not all landed in the same place. Some name the UGC parameters directly. Some require a specific database. Some still say "UGC CARE" out of habit. All of them are entitled to set their own rule, and the rule that binds you is the one in your own institution’s ordinance for your admission year.
Ask the research section in writing, and ask these four things specifically:
How many publications are required, and at what stage — before submission, before the viva, or before award?
What makes a journal acceptable now that the CARE List has ended — the UGC parameters, a named database, or something else?
Do conference proceedings, book chapters or preprints count towards the requirement?
Which ordinance applies to your admission batch, and can you have a copy?
Keep the reply. A written answer from your own research section settles a question that no journal, no website and no senior colleague can settle for you.
Decision table
Match the Wording to the Check
Ordinances use different words for the same requirement. Find your wording in the first column.
Institutional requirement wording matched to the verification to run and the evidence to keep
Your ordinance says
What to verify
Where
Keep as evidence
"Journal meeting UGC's suggested parameters"
Run the fourteen checks above against the journal
ISSN Portal, Crossref, the journal's own policy pages
Dated screenshots of each check
"Scopus" or "Web of Science" by name
The ISSN appears in that database with matching title and publisher, and the coverage is current
scopus.com/sources or mjl.clarivate.com
The source record, saved with the date
"UGC CARE journal" (old wording)
Ask the research section in writing what it accepts now that the list has ended
Your institution
Their written reply
"Peer-reviewed / refereed journal"
A published review policy, a named editorial board and a valid ISSN
The journal site and the ISSN Portal
The policy page and the ISSN record
Conference proceedings or book chapters
Whether they count at all for your purpose
Your institution's ordinance for your admission year
The ordinance clause
It is not necessarily fatal
Already Published Somewhere That Now Looks Doubtful?
This happens to careful people. Work through it in order rather than panicking or hiding it.
Establish what actually happened
Check whether the journal still exists, whether your article is still online, and whether the DOI resolves. Save dated screenshots of what you find.
Read your institution’s position
Ask the research section in writing whether the publication counts for your purpose. Their answer, not a general rule, is what governs your file.
Keep the submission record
Correspondence, the acceptance letter, the invoice and the terms in force when you submitted all matter if the status is later questioned.
Do not quietly republish
Submitting the same work elsewhere without disclosing the earlier publication is duplicate publication, and it is treated far more seriously than the original choice of venue.
Ask about withdrawal or correction
If the article is genuinely compromised, the publisher’s retraction or withdrawal procedure is the route. A journal with no such procedure tells you something in itself.
The one thing not to do is submit the same work elsewhere without disclosing the earlier publication. Duplicate publication is treated as misconduct by every reputable journal, and unlike a poor venue choice it is entirely within your control.
Every check on this page should be run against us as readily as against anyone else — that is the point of publishing the method rather than asking for trust. Our evidence for each parameter is set out in full on the framework page, and the underlying policies are linked below.
Discovery links, not indexing claims. Crossref Search, OpenAlex and Google Search open search results; they show what those services find, not that the journal is indexed there or holds a DOI prefix. The profile and listing links open the journal's own records.
Submit Your Paper to JMVRA
Peer reviewed, open access, ISSN 2984-8911. Read the author guidelines and the current call for papers, then submit online. No acceptance decision, date or indexing outcome is promised in advance.
These visible answers also power the FAQ structured data on this page.
Has UGC really discontinued the UGC CARE list?
Yes. UGC withdrew the UGC CARE Journal List in its Public Notice of 3 October 2024, issued after the 584th UGC Meeting, and reconfirmed the position by public notices of 11 February 2025 and 16 July 2025. It was replaced by a policy setting suggested parameters for identifying credible peer-reviewed journals rather than maintaining a fixed list.
Is the UGC CARE list valid in 2026?
There is no current list to be valid. The centralised UGC-CARE List is no longer maintained. A snapshot of 1,474 journals as on 10 February 2025 remains available as a reference archive, but UGC has stated that inclusion in it is not validation and exclusion from it is not condemnation.
What are the eight UGC suggestive parameter categories?
UGC approved them on 24 June 2025: journal preliminaries, editorial board, editorial policy, content quality, journal standards, research ethics, journal visibility, and impact criteria. Each is explained on this page, with the practical check you run for it.
What is the difference between UGC CARE Group I and Group II?
Group I held journals found qualified through the UGC-CARE protocols, assessed directly against CARE criteria. Group II held journals indexed in globally recognised databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, admitted on the strength of that coverage. An earlier four-group structure of A, B, C and D was consolidated into these two.
Is there a UGC CARE journal list for commerce, management, education or English literature?
The old list was divided into four subject areas using ASJC codes, so subject-filtered versions existed and still circulate. None of them is current. Under the new framework, subject fit is assessed as part of content quality and editorial policy — does the journal's scope cover your field, and do its recent issues carry comparable work? That is a question about the journal, not about a list.
Can I get a UGC approval certificate for a journal?
No. UGC does not issue approval certificates for journals, and it did not issue them under the CARE framework either. Anyone selling you one is selling a document that does not exist.
With no list, how do I check a journal myself?
Apply the parameters. Verify the ISSN on the ISSN Portal, confirm the peer review policy is actually published, check for a real address and professional email domain, follow a published DOI to see whether it resolves, and open an article from three years ago. A journal failing several of these is one to avoid whatever it claims.
How long should checking a journal take?
About five minutes for the fast checks — ISSN, DOI, archive, editorial board, fee disclosure. A fuller review against all fourteen parameters takes perhaps twenty. That is a small cost against the time already spent writing the paper.
What are the warning signs of a predatory or cloned journal?
A title deceptively close to an established journal, an ISSN that does not resolve or does not match the title, no physical address, a free email domain, fees that appear only after acceptance, claimed indexing with no verifiable record, a promised review turnaround of days, and no accessible archive of past issues.
My university still asks for a UGC CARE journal. What do I tell them?
Ask the research section, in writing, what they currently accept, given that the list was discontinued in October 2024. Most institutions have since restated their requirement in terms of the parameters. Their written answer is what governs your file, not any general statement including this one.
Does publishing in a journal that was on the old CARE list still count?
That is your institution's decision, not the journal's and not ours. The list no longer exists, so what an institution now accepts is a matter of its own current regulations. Ask, and keep the reply.
I have already published somewhere that now looks doubtful. What should I do?
Establish the facts and keep records, ask your research section in writing whether the publication counts, and do not republish the same work elsewhere without disclosing the earlier publication. There is a step-by-step section on this page covering exactly this.
What is JMVRA's own status under the new framework?
JMVRA is a Transparent, Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Refereed Journal). Following the discontinuation of UGC and UGC-CARE journal listing, JMVRA is aligned with UGC's Suggested Parameters for Choosing Peer-Reviewed Journals. Each parameter and the evidence for it is set out on our UGC framework page — and you should apply every check on this page to us as readily as to anyone else.
Why do journals still advertise themselves as "UGC CARE Approved"?
Because authors and institutions still search for that phrase. Under the current framework what it can honestly mean is that a journal satisfies the UGC parameters — which is a claim you can and should verify against the checks on this page rather than accept at face value.
How much does publication cost at JMVRA, and when is it charged?
The charge is ₹971 INR, published in advance. It is invoiced only after a paper has been accepted through peer review — never at submission, and never as a condition of being reviewed.
