UGC-CARE List 2026: Status, Group I & Group II

Indian researchers long settled the question “will this paper count?” by consulting the UGC-CARE list, but that arrangement is over. In this guide you will find where the UGC-CARE list stands in 2026, what Group I and Group II stood for, the suggested parameters UGC now provides for selecting peer-reviewed journals, and the exact steps for checking a journal at present. Keeping a short written record of each check will help you later.

A good number of websites continue to present the archived list as though it were today’s approved list. Here we lay out what changed, where the archived list remains useful, and how to arrive at a choice of journal you can defend.

Does the UGC CARE List Remain Valid in 2026?

To sum up: the archived list is a record of the past, not a present-day approval list. A journal’s earlier inclusion does not on its own prove it is acceptable now, and its absence from the old list does not on its own exclude it. What matters is your institution’s current rule plus an assessment of the journal itself. Combining both gives you a position that stands up if anyone questions your choice.

What Was UGC CARE?

UGC CARE is short for University Grants Commission – Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics. Founded in 2018, it sought to encourage good research and ethical publishing across Indian higher education. Its best-known product was the UGC-CARE Reference List of Quality Journals, which many universities relied on for PhD requirements, appointments and promotions until the listing was ended.

The Reason UGC CARE Came into Being

Understanding Group I and Group II

Two groups made up the archived list:

Each group belongs to the archived list, and neither one signals present validation. When a journal is in Scopus or Web of Science, look at that database’s own up-to-date record.

The Reason a Fixed List Was Dropped

A fixed list carries inherent flaws: a journal may stay on it after the practices that earned the place have lapsed, genuine improvements may take a while to be noticed, and listed titles draw copycats — cloned journals that reuse a listed journal’s name and ISSN. Suggestive parameters shift the evaluation to the moment of use, when the author or institution tests the journal against present criteria exactly when it matters. Our guide on UGC-CARE being discontinued describes the change in greater depth.

Suggested Parameters from UGC

In Annexure-I of UGC’s notice, 35 suggestive parameters are arranged in 8 categories. These are guidance rather than a new list: institutions may build their own criteria from them, and authors may use them to size up a journal before submission. In practice they cover the following areas:

For a full explanation, turn to an explanation of UGC’s suggested parameters together with the new peer-reviewed journals policy.

Proper Use of the Archived List

Checking a Journal in 2026

1. Begin by asking your institution. A university can maintain its own lists or criteria for PhD submission, appointments and promotion. Obtain the present requirement in writing.
2. Establish identity through the ISSN Portal. ISSN, title and publisher need to agree with the website in front of you, because cloned journals frequently take over a genuine ISSN.
3. Measure the journal by UGC’s parameters: its board, peer review, ethics policies, archive and presentation.
4. Test each indexing claim where it originates: on the Scopus Sources page, in the Master Journal List for Web of Science, or at DOAJ.
5. Treat the archived CARE list purely as history, always keeping the UGC notice in view.
6. Maintain an evidence file with dates covering each check you make.

Our guides cover checking Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ and PubMed as well as spotting cloned journals.

Journals in Scopus and Web of Science Following CARE

A number of institutions mention Scopus or Web of Science indexing explicitly in their rules. If yours is one, the evidence that counts is the database’s own up-to-date record, not a CARE “Group II” label. Make sure coverage is active and takes in your publication year, and note which index (for example, SCIE or ESCI) includes the journal. Our Scopus quartile guide clarifies quartiles in case your rule refers to Q1 or Q2.

Implications for PhD, CAS, NET and JRF

To understand appraisal scoring, see how research papers count in API scores.

Warning Signs in “UGC CARE” Promotion

• “UGC CARE listed in 2026” offered as present approval without any mention of UGC’s notice.
• Stolen or invented ISSNs — confirm them on the ISSN Portal.
• Acceptance in a matter of days — real peer review is not instant.
• “Guaranteed publication” — a genuine journal cannot promise acceptance.
• Money requested ahead of review, above all into personal accounts.
• An editorial board that cannot be confirmed through institutional pages.
• Pushy unrequested emails urging you to submit fast.

Learn how to state UGC claims correctly, and see our predatory journal checklist.

What a Fee Reveals, and What It Does Not

Certain websites assert that a journal with a low publication fee has to be predatory. That is an unreliable test, because affordable, genuine journals do exist, and so do costly, questionable ones. The mechanics of the fee are what count. Judge the arrangement around the payment rather than the size of the amount alone:

Further reading covers what a publication fee covers, plus low-cost journals in India and UGC CARE.

Tips on Publishing in 2026

1. Look at your institution’s policy first — it determines what is valid for you.
2. Fit the journal to the rule: Scopus or Web of Science where that is demanded; otherwise a genuine peer-reviewed journal evaluated on the parameters.
3. Confirm each claim at its origin, never through a journal’s own badges.
4. Allow plenty of time: real peer review is slow, so avoid submitting during the final weeks before a deadline.
5. Save your records: the acceptance email, the published link, the ISSN check and your evidence file.
6. Verify again before claiming: status and policies shift over time; read how to re-verify a journal’s status.

Putting Together an Evidence File

Store every item as a dated PDF or screenshot in a separate folder for each paper. A worked assessment is included in our evidence-based guide to choosing journals.

A Worked Assessment

Below is an example of how a scholar could evaluate an imaginary journal, the “Journal of Regional Development Studies”, across the parameter areas. Rate each area as pass, partial or fail, and record the supporting evidence:

This journal is a credible, truthful option where the rule calls for a genuine peer-reviewed journal, though it would fail a rule demanding Scopus indexing. Putting the assessment in writing is what makes the choice defensible.

Explaining Your Choice to a Committee

Committees and examiners benefit from a brief, factual note on each paper:

Do not use labels you cannot back up, for example “UGC CARE listed” for a recent paper. Say precisely what you verified and on which date.

Guidance for Institutions Creating Their Own Lists

• Build criteria from UGC’s suggestive parameters and make them public for staff and scholars.
• Evaluate journals rather than labels: apply an identical checklist to each proposed journal, with no exceptions.
• Put a date on each decision and revisit lists from time to time, since journals evolve.
• Offer a way to propose journals, so researchers can put forward a journal along with evidence for evaluation.
• Be alert to clones of approved titles, and state the official website and ISSN of each one.

JMVRA’s Position on UGC

Journal Checklist for 2026

1. Institution rulePresent requirement received in writing
2. IdentityISSN, title and publisher agree with the ISSN Portal
3. ParametersBoard, review, ethics and archive evaluated
4. Indexing claimsConfirmed in every database
5. Archived listTreated as history alone, with its date noted
6. EvidenceA dated file retained for each paper

Using Old CARE Group Labels Sensibly in Your Publication Plan

Many scholars still meet the older group labels in forms, handbooks and conversations. Knowing how to treat them keeps your planning realistic and prevents surprises when a supervisor or panel reviews your record.

• Treat labels as history. A past grouping tells you how a journal was viewed in the past, not how it works today. Use it as a clue for further checking, never as the final answer.
• Ask what your panel expects. Before starting a thesis chapter paper, ask your guide or research committee which evidence they will accept. Their written answer saves you from rewriting or republishing at a stressful moment.
• Match the venue to the purpose. A paper meant for a degree requirement, a promotion file or simply for sharing ideas may need different venues. Define the purpose first, then select the journal accordingly.
• Beware of recycled screenshots. Some websites display old list pages as if they were current. Compare any image with the original notice and treat unexplained logos or tables with caution.
• Plan time for revisions. Good journals often request changes. Build extra time into your schedule for reviewer comments so that deadlines for submissions, viva or appraisal do not push you towards hurried choices.

Use legacy labels only as a starting clue, confirm what your own institution requires, and leave enough time to publish carefully rather than hurriedly.

Questions Researchers Often Ask

In Summary

The UGC-CARE list served as a handy shortcut, yet it is now an archived reference rather than an approval list in force. A defensible choice of journal in 2026 depends on three things: your institution’s present written rule, an honest evaluation of the journal against UGC’s suggested parameters, and dated evidence of each check.

Treat the archived list as history, confirm indexing claims at their source, evaluate fees by how they operate rather than their size, and keep your evidence file current.

References and Sources

• UGC public notice on CARE journals (PDF)
• University Grants Commission
• ISSN Portal
• Scopus Sources page
• Clarivate Master Journal List
• DOAJ