Predatory publishers and journals | UGC Public Notice | eSupport for Research | 2022 |Dr. Akash Bhoi

Predatory journals and publishers profit from researchers by offering fast acceptance and publication while skipping core safeguards like rigorous peer review and publication ethics. In India, where reported use of such outlets is described as especially high, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued a public notice on academic integrity to protect the credibility of research and to reduce misconduct that can damage trust in scholarly work.

The notice frames academic publishing as part of responsible conduct of research—work that supports truth-finding, knowledge creation, and socio-economic benefit. Against that backdrop, it targets unethical practices including plagiarism and deceptive academic writing. UGC’s response is to push researchers, students, and academic staff toward vetted venues and away from dubious ones, emphasizing that integrity must be maintained across the research ecosystem.

A central UGC directive is to avoid publishing in predatory or “dubious” journals and to avoid participating in predatory conferences. It also advises against associating with such outlets in roles beyond publication—such as serving as an editor, advisor, or in any other capacity—because involvement can legitimize fraudulent operations. Crucially, any publication, presentation, or participation tied to predatory or dubious journals/conferences should not be counted for academic credit. That includes use for selection, confirmation, promotion, performance appraisal, or scholarship/degree-related evaluation, and it applies with immediate effect.

For academic purposes, UGC urges reliance on journals indexed in UGC-CARE lists. The guidance distinguishes between journals that are indexed in major databases such as Scopus and Web of Science (and related categories like SCIE/ESCI/SSCI) and journals that may be scrutinized and enlisted through UGC-CARE evaluation even if they are not indexed in those international systems. The underlying message is that publication decisions should be grounded in venue quality rather than raw publication counts.

The transcript also lays out how to identify predatory publishing. Predatory publishing is described as a systematic profit-driven approach that deceives authors—often by charging article processing charges (APCs) without proper peer review or quality assurance, and by promising quick acceptance. It stresses that “for profit” alone is not automatically problematic; the issue is profit generation without commitment to ethics, integrity, and scholarly contribution.

To guide evaluation, the transcript points to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) resources and its principles for journal transparency, including clear information on the journal website: peer review process, governance and editorial team, copyright and licensing, author fees, handling of allegations of misconduct, archiving policies, and openness options (such as hybrid or gold open access), along with revenue model transparency (e.g., advertising or direct marketing). It also references UGC-CARE resources that list journals by discipline and provide links to tools such as Beall’s List for additional screening.

Finally, the transcript advises that vice chancellors, selection committees, research supervisors, and other evaluators should base decisions on research quality, using UGC-CARE indexing as a reference point to verify where work has been published. The goal is to safeguard academic integrity and restore confidence that published research meets ethical and quality standards.