Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Critical Analysis of the ‘UGC-Approved List of Journals’


Affiliations
1 Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Department of Library and Information Science, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India
2 Department of Library and Information Science, Interdisciplinary School of Scientific Computing, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India
3 Interdisciplinary School of Scientific Computing, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India
4 Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India
5 Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur 302 033, India
6 Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
 

Scholarly journals play an important role in maintaining the quality and integrity of research by what they publish. Unethical practices in publishing are leading to an increased number of predatory, dubious and low-quality journals worldwide. It has been reported that the percentage of research articles published in predatory journals is high in India. The University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi has published an ‘approved list of journals’, which has been criticized due to inclusion of many substandard journals. We have developed a protocol with objective criteria for identifying journals that do not follow good publication practices. We studied 1336 journals randomly selected from 5699 in the university source component of the ‘UGC-approved list’. We analysed 1009 journals after excluding 327 indexed in Scopus/Web of Science. About 34.5% of the 1009 journals were disqualified under the basic criteria because of incorrect or non-availability of essential information such as address, website details and names of editors; another 52.3% of them provided false information such as incorrect ISSN, false claims about impact factor, claimed indexing in dubious indexing databases or had poor credentials of editors. Our results suggest that over 88% of the non-indexed journals in the university source component of the UGC-approved list, included on the basis of suggestions from different universities, could be of low quality. In view of these results, the current UGC-approved list of journals needs serious re-consideration. New regulations to curtail unethical practices in scientific publishing along with organization of awareness programmes about publication ethics at Indian universities and research institutes are urgently needed.

Keywords

Predatory and Dubious Journals, Publication Ethics, University Source Component, Unethical Practices.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Lakhotia, S. C., Predatory journals and academic pollution. Curr. Sci., 2015, 108, 1407–1408.

  • Beall, J., Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 2012, 489, 179–180.

  • Moher, D. et al., Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature, 2017, 549, 23–25.

  • Priyadarshini, S., India tops submissions in predatory journals. Nature India, 2017; doi:10.1038/nindia.2017.115

  • Seethapathy, G. S., Santhosh Kumar, J. U. and Hareesha, A. S., India’s scientific publication in predatory journals: need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Curr. Sci., 2016, 111, 1759–1764.

  • Pulla, P., Predatory publishers gain foothold in Indian academia’s upper echelon. Science News, 2016; doi:10.1126/science.aal0526.

  • Aggarwal, R., Gogtay, N., Kumar, R. and Sahni, P., The revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India for academic promotions: need for a rethink. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med., 2016, 7, 3–5.

  • Patwardhan, B., Indian science and predatory journals. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med., 2017, 8, 1–2.

  • Lakhotia, S. C., Mis-conceived and mis-implemented academic assessment rules underlie the scourge of predatory journals and conferences. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad., 2017, 83, 513–515.

  • Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A. and Pisanski, K., Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 2017, 534, 481–483.

  • Manca, A., Martinez, G., Cugusi, L., Dragone, D., Dvir, Z. and Deriu, F., The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neuroscience, 2017, 353, 166–173.

  • Lalu, M. M., Shamseer, L., Cobey, K. D. and Moher, D., How stakeholders can respond to the rise of predatory journals. Nature Hum. Behav., 2017, 1, 852–855.

  • Clark, A. M. and Thompson, D. R., Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals. J. Adv. Nurs., 2017, 73, 2499–2501.

  • Chen, Ming-Li and Cathy Lin, Wen-Yau, What we have learnd from San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and Leiden Manifesto? J. Educ. Media Libr. Sci., 2017, 54, 111–129.


Abstract Views: 248

PDF Views: 78




  • A Critical Analysis of the ‘UGC-Approved List of Journals’

Abstract Views: 248  |  PDF Views: 78

Authors

Bhushan Patwardhan
Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Department of Library and Information Science, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India
Shubhada Nagarkar
Department of Library and Information Science, Interdisciplinary School of Scientific Computing, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India
Shridhar R. Gadre
Interdisciplinary School of Scientific Computing, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, India
Subhash C. Lakhotia
Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India
Vishwa Mohan Katoch
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur 302 033, India
David Moher
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

Abstract


Scholarly journals play an important role in maintaining the quality and integrity of research by what they publish. Unethical practices in publishing are leading to an increased number of predatory, dubious and low-quality journals worldwide. It has been reported that the percentage of research articles published in predatory journals is high in India. The University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi has published an ‘approved list of journals’, which has been criticized due to inclusion of many substandard journals. We have developed a protocol with objective criteria for identifying journals that do not follow good publication practices. We studied 1336 journals randomly selected from 5699 in the university source component of the ‘UGC-approved list’. We analysed 1009 journals after excluding 327 indexed in Scopus/Web of Science. About 34.5% of the 1009 journals were disqualified under the basic criteria because of incorrect or non-availability of essential information such as address, website details and names of editors; another 52.3% of them provided false information such as incorrect ISSN, false claims about impact factor, claimed indexing in dubious indexing databases or had poor credentials of editors. Our results suggest that over 88% of the non-indexed journals in the university source component of the UGC-approved list, included on the basis of suggestions from different universities, could be of low quality. In view of these results, the current UGC-approved list of journals needs serious re-consideration. New regulations to curtail unethical practices in scientific publishing along with organization of awareness programmes about publication ethics at Indian universities and research institutes are urgently needed.

Keywords


Predatory and Dubious Journals, Publication Ethics, University Source Component, Unethical Practices.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv114%2Fi06%2F1299-1303