A study of the list of the journals approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) found that over 88 percent of them (recommended by the Universities) are sub-standard.
The study -- Critical analysis of UGC-approved list of journals -- was headed by a Pune-based researcher, Dr Bhushan Patwardhan, #professor at the Inter-disciplinary School of Health Sciences, Pune University.
The study found out that at least 349 or 34.5 percent of the journals carried inaccurate or non-availability of essential information such as address, website details and names of editors and were disqualified.
As many as 528 journals or 52.3 percent journals, had false information or their editors had poor credentials.
In the study only 112 journals managed to score a score of 6 or above while the remaining .9 percent of journals did not satisfy the minimal requirements, the study found.
Dr Patwardhan, the main author of the study, said "widespread ‘publish or perish’ policies have given rise to a breed of predatory journals, whose main objective is to make money by publishing ‘anything’ in the name of a research paper for a ‘fee’, commonly known as an “article/author processing charge".
The UGC has also admitted that it had received various complaints about the journals being sub-standard soon after the releasing the approved list of journals on June 2 last year.
“This was our independent research. We have developed a protocol with objective criteria to identify journals that do not follow good publication practices,” said Patwardhan.
Education News
Over 88 percent of the Journals are sub-standard: UGC's study
Widespread ‘publish or perish’ policies have given rise to a breed of predatory journals, whose main objective is to make money