An
entry-ticket into the academic fair
The
University Grants Commission established a committee called the Consortium for
Academic and Research Ethics (CARE) in November 2018 meant to protect academic
integrity, by vetting scholarly journals to bring to public notice fraudulent
publications that had adopted a “pay and publish” business model.
Last January
the UGC announced that four central universities would be involved in vetting
journals for CARE: the Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Maharaja Sayajirao
University of Baroda, the University of Hyderabad, and Tezpur University. The
Savitribai Phule Pune University would be in charge of the process of including
and excluding journals from the list of UGC-approved journals.
In June it issued an important public notice about the continuing misconduct and unethical actions of academic publishers ever since the first list of UGC-approved journals was published on its website.
In June it issued an important public notice about the continuing misconduct and unethical actions of academic publishers ever since the first list of UGC-approved journals was published on its website.
The notice
confirms that “unethical/deceptive practices in publishing are leading to an
increased number of dubious/predatory journals worldwide. It has been reported
that in India the percentage of research articles published in predatory
journals is high. Unethical practices leading to ‘pay and publish trash’ needs
to be thwarted immediately”.
Media reports suggested that the
CARE list had narrowed the number of “verified and genuine” journals to around
800, as opposed to more than 5,000 in the previous UGC list. Only papers
published in approved journals would count towards academic promotion.
A sample study of the earlier, larger list by academics at the Savitribai Phule Pune University found that 35% of approved journals did not meet the UGC’s basic criteria for inclusion, but were included anyway. Some 88% of listed journals were found to have given “false information such as incorrect ISSN, false claims about impact factor, claimed indexing in dubious indexing databases or had poor credentials of editors,” according to UGC vice-chairman Bhushan Patwardhan.
A sample study of the earlier, larger list by academics at the Savitribai Phule Pune University found that 35% of approved journals did not meet the UGC’s basic criteria for inclusion, but were included anyway. Some 88% of listed journals were found to have given “false information such as incorrect ISSN, false claims about impact factor, claimed indexing in dubious indexing databases or had poor credentials of editors,” according to UGC vice-chairman Bhushan Patwardhan.
However, the
new CARE list is also ethically compromised.
I frequently
visit the CARE list, out of curiosity to see which journals have been newly
included, and to discover journals to which I can send my research. It is very
unfortunate to see that many approved journals are not of the expected quality.
Further, many do not have an ISSN, in complete violation of the UGC’s basic criteria, and still others lack properly maintained websites or proper editorial information. The Arts & Humanities index alone, with 343 approved journals, lists 34 which do not have an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number).
Further, many do not have an ISSN, in complete violation of the UGC’s basic criteria, and still others lack properly maintained websites or proper editorial information. The Arts & Humanities index alone, with 343 approved journals, lists 34 which do not have an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number).
And I know
from personal experience that some of the listed journals demand cash payments
for publication.
I wonder how
many more such shoddy, predatory journals have been approved in the other
disciplines. But more than that, I wonder how a statutory body with experts in
each field of study could approve the inclusion of such journals. How could
these publications find a place in the CARE list, created to protect academic
ethics?
Here are two
possibilities: either these journals do not have an ISSN at all, or the
“experts” proved their failure to provide such basic details in their list.
Either way, it shows inefficiency and misconduct. And it needs immediate
re-consideration.
How is it
that journals described by the UGC as “pay and publish trash” are still getting
this entry-ticket into the academic fair? How will these blots support the
research culture in India?
Abhijit Maity
is an independent researcher from West Bengal, and a lecturer in English
literature and cultural studies at the Mahishadal Girls’ College, Vidyasagar
University
Regards
Pralhad Jadhav
Associate Director – Library
Khaitan & Co.
Nice
ReplyDelete