Should we trust on University Grants Commission (UGC), India approved journals?
Recently, University Grants Commission (UGC), Government of India approved more than 44000 journals (http://www.ugc.ac.in/journallist/). This list has the inclusion of a large number of predatory, fake, and questionable journals. The UGC is also agreeing for the same.
Why so? Is it a mistake? Is it corruption? Can't we offer quality journals?
As per The UGC, "The UGC-approved List of Journals includes Journals covered in i) Web of Science; ii) Scopus; iii) Indian Citation Index (ICI); iv) Journals recommended by the Standing Committee on Notification on Journal and Language Committee, and v) Journal recommended by Universities"
In my view, UGC should not publish a list of approved journals to maintain authenticity and trust. One sentence is enough "Journal must be listed in Web of Science and Scopus"
The idea of evaluating and rechecking journals is good as long as it has measurable methods and sufficient period of time. I mean some journals start effectively and then after receiving the accreditation, the quality becomes poor. But I don't think 4000 journals can be judged in a short period of time to be excluded is a practical idea.
I received several mails with the caption UGC approved journals. After careful examination of those journal websites, I came to a conclusion that they are predatory journals. Yes, UGC should have instructed to publish in Scopus and ISI listed journals only. What is the need to create another list? All education bodies in INDIA are corrupt ones.
It's always better to publish your paper in peer reviewed international journals of repute preferably enlisted in Thomson Reuters' list and carrying impact factors. Don't communicate your manuscript to any predatory or paid journal.
I agree with you excepting the last sentence. I understand your intention is clear and recommendable to the researchers. But I strongly object your derogatory remarks about Indian education system and educational bodies! How can you generalize all and put a black stamp?
I am totally agreeing with you and I am not putting a question mark on our educational systems. We have a large number of institutions and people, they work like an angel but how can we ignore dark side. As an educator, I have to reflect on the dark side.
I am also receiving a large number of emails with the heading UGC approved journals. Majority of these journals are listed in UGC but are almost all are predictory questionable, pointed out by Dr. Dinaharan. Why should the governing body approve such journals?
Look around I am sure you will find a large number of people are in the dark and receiving benefits too. You can find several surveys on this topic and it reveals that we are publishing most in questionable journals. Don't you think we must stop this?
Finally, questioning on the dark side is not punching a black stamp on the entire system. I believe we must raise a loud voice against these issues to protect our future.
"I know the biggest crime is just to throw up your hands and say "This has nothing to do with me, I just want to live as comfortably as I can."" ~ Ani DiFranco
I agree with with. There are two sides of our system. Some people are involved in compromising with quality and unholy nexus only to serve some petty vested interests.
Here's also the reflection of such degradation and dilution of quality applicable for publication in research journals. It may open the floodgate and contaminate the higher education and research system on a mass scale. How can you compare the publications in journals without any quality check with that published which face rigorous quality check and standard enhancement in international journals of repute? There must have some standard benchmark acceptable to international scientific and research community at large.
I see it as one more blunder on the part of the UGC, which is unnecessarily trying to push things. Majority of the journals are predatory, with no authentic editorial boards, no reviewers panel, aimed to mint money.
The most important part is that it should be plagiarism free as part of quality. Paid or APC is business which is either upfront or post. I think it going on #AICTE way. First allowing to get quantity and then hell breaks on quality. Which may become self evident in the age of transparency and connectivity!
A critical analysis of the ‘UGC-approved list of journals’
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 analyzed 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 reconsideration. 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.
The Telegraph | Basant Kumar Mohanty and G.S. Mudur | Mar 26, 2018 |
New Delhi: An academic watchdog has asked the University Grants Commission to crack down on “predatory journals” amid fresh allegations of plagiarism and the fabrication of fraudulent papers. The Society for Scientific Values, which seeks to protect ethics in academia, has described as a “racket” the emergence of hundreds of predatory journals that, for a fee from scholars and teachers, publish poor-quality research without peer review. The Society’s appeal to the commission, the higher education regulator, follows concerns that more than half the 3,300 academic papers from India published in predatory journals over six months in 2015-16 had come from faculty and scholars in government or private institutions. Teachers are required to publish papers for career progression while research students have to publish to get their PhD degrees.
“Predatory journals are pulling down standards. They don’t care about the quality of research, they publish whatever they receive as papers – and make money,” said Kasturi Lal Chopra, former director of IIT Kharagpur and president of the Society. The watchdog has said that the list of journals approved by the commission includes a large number of predatory journals. “Such journals get an ISSN identity (a registration number) without any scrutiny and, on payment of Rs 2,000 to Rs 4,000, publish papers without scrutiny,” Chopra said. “When a plagiarism charge is brought up, they simply retract the paper, but those who wrote the paper continue to cite it in their CVs.” Senior faculty members from two engineering colleges have claimed the predatory journal industry also allows vested interests to make false charges of plagiarism. J.P. Saini, director of the Delhi-based Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology and V.K. Pathak, vice-chancellor of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow, claim they are “victims” of false portrayal as plagiarists. Teachers at the Netaji Subhas Institute have said, requesting anonymity, that Saini had co-authored a paper in the May-June issue of the International Journal for Advanced Scientific and Technical Research that had reproduced portions of a paper published by a four-member Japanese-Pakistani team in 2012. Saini denied any plagiarism, claiming the allegedly plagiarising paper was a “fabricated” document concocted by “persons with mala fide intentions”
We as a process are getting all our published material go through urkund check with guidance to student and researcher that it is to be done before submitting. Once it is brought for academic decision again the record of the same is check and if found less than 10% is taken into account. All the ownership of published material is with writer. I think these two best practice one can follow and assist the body of knowledge get build. The third thing publisher should do that they must see that review is done in some given time line and have stated policy of APC. At the end always some body is paying for it, as either is is at front end or post end. As a third world country we are more happy if it is post end being born by library for subscribing the journal. Is it not better that non propriety knowledge is available free for researcher to make further progress without gaining the commercial benefit out of it? A disclaimer should help!
Urkund is not reliable to check plagiarism. Urkund does not have trusted database such as like Scopus and ISI journals (web of science). Turnitin the best to check similarities and almost all countries are using Turnitin.
Bibliometric indicators have been devised to quantify scientific production and to try to evaluate its impact in the community. In general, bibliometric indicators can be classified according to whether the unit of analysis is the author (individual or group) or journal. The most widely used indicators for authors are those that measure an individu...
Black (2012), using a novel citation-type analysis, identified the most frequently cited journals in forensic psychology. The article prompted two pedagogic concerns: the lack of coverage regarding the attributes and limitations of currently available features of citation operations in major databases, and on the expository level, in addressing a s...
A size-independent indicator of journals’ scientific prestige, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, is proposed that ranks scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes and eigenvector centrality. It is designed for use with complex and heterogeneous citation networks such as Scopus. Its computation method is described, and the result...