Purpose : This perspective examined why cloned (hijacked) journals create a verification problem that differs from conventional predatory publishing, and what policy response suits Indian higher education after the UGC-CARE list was discontinued in 2025.

Design/Methodology/Approach : The paper is a policy perspective and is based on published research, UGC regulations and notices, and two illustrative incidents of deceptive publishing from editorial practice in 2026, using signaling theory and information asymmetry as the lens.

Findings : Predatory journals fabricate signs of legitimacy, while clones steal those of a genuine journal and so defeat the checks authors trust most. Indexing records can themselves be compromised. When the UGC-CARE list was discontinued in 2025, verification passed from a central list to each institution, and the heaviest burden probably falls on state universities and colleges, where studies of predatory journals show high exposure.

Practical Implications : A multi-layered approach is required. Regulators should keep a dynamic national registry of verified journal identities, cross-checked against independent records. Funders and appraisal systems should reward verified publications, and not publication counts. Institutions should embed verification in doctoral training and submission workflows, rather than add it on.

Originality/Value : Studies of cloned journals mostly describe how clones operate. Drawing upon an analysis of policy options, this paper distinguishes between identity verification and quality assessment and applies it to the regulatory transition in India in 2025, arguing for a governed registry that is not an approval list, and suggests a phased implementation model. This paper is conceptual, and empirical testing is required to test the propositions.

Abalkina, A. (2021). Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics, 126(8), 7123–7148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0

Abalkina, A. (2024a). Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(4), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24855

Abalkina, A. (2024b, November 25). Exclusive: New hijacking scam targets Elsevier, Springer Nature, and other major publishers. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/11/25/exclusive-new-hijacking-scam-targets-elsevier-springer-nature-and-other-major-publishers/

Abalkina, A. (2025). Journal hijacking: Challenges for the scientific community and recommendations for journals. LIBREAS. Library Ideas, 47. https://doi.org/10.18452/34776

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431

Anand, A. (2019, June 1). Fake 'CARE' website inviting paper submission, UGC issues warning. Careers360. https://news.careers360.com/fake-care-website-inviting-paper-submission-ugc-issues-warning

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

Bagga, T., Gupta, P. K., Ola, M. O., & Gilani, P. (2025). NEP 2020 in practice: Perspectives on implementation challenges. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 18(12), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2025/v18i12/175030

Bagga, T., Sawhney, D., & Gilani, P. (2025). How will India's One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) policy shape the future of small Indian journal publishers? A perspective on challenges. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 18(2), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2025/v18i2/174162

Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489, 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a

Beall, J. (2015). Predatory journals and the breakdown of research cultures. Information Development, 31(5), 473–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915601421

Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029

Bhasker, J., & Vijay Solomon, R. (2025). The cost of deception: Pseudo-journals and exploitative article processing charges. Research Evaluation, 34, Article rvaf017. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf017

Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research, 7, Article 1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2

Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: Actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 12(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x

Dora, M., & Kampa, R. K. (2023). Predatory publishing in Indian LIS research: A case study. Serials Review, 49(1–2), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2023.2174405

Joshi, N. A., Joshi, M., & Trada, S. (2024). A bibliometric and thematic analysis of the Indian Journal of Marketing: A study of 13 years. Indian Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2024/v54/i4/173711

Kashinath, M. S., & Mandavilli, G. (2026). From journal validation to quality governance: A policy analysis of India's transition from UGC-CARE to quality-oriented research assessment and its implications for medical and dental education. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1907455. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1907455

Khedkar, E. B., Kumar, A., Ingle, A., Khaire, R., Paliwal, J. M., Bagul, D., Warpade, S., Londhe, B. M., Malkar, V., Huddedar, S. P., Jambhekar, N. D., & Raibagkar, S. S. (2022). Study of the causes and consequences of cloned journal publications. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38(3), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09907-z

Makhafola, L. (2023, November 10). Academic integrity series: 8. Beware of hijacked or cloned journals. University of Pretoria, Department of Library Services. https://www.up.ac.za/department-of-library-services/news/academic-integrity-series-8-beware-of-hijacked-or-cloned-journals

Meho, L. I. (2025). Gaming the metrics: Bibliometric anomalies in global university rankings and the research integrity risk index (RI2). Scientometrics, 130(11), 6683–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05480-2

National Institutional Ranking Framework. (2025). India rankings 2025. Ministry of Education, Government of India. https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2025/pdf/Report/IR2025_Report.pdf

Parray, U. Y., Loan, F. A., & Khan, A. M. (2025). The dark side of publishing: Unveiling the deceptive tactics of cloned journals in India. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 57(4), 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241256392

Patwardhan, B., Nagarkar, S., Gadre, S. R., Lakhotia, S. C., Katoch, V. M., & Moher, D. (2018). A critical analysis of the 'UGC-approved list of journals'. Current Science, 114(6), 1299–1303. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1299-1303

Seethapathy, G. S., Santhosh Kumar, J. U., & Hareesha, A. S. (2016). India's scientific publication in predatory journals: Need for regulating quality of Indian science and education. Current Science, 111(11), 1759–1764. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v111/i11/1759-1764

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., Clark, J., Galipeau, J., Roberts, J., & Shea, B. J. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Singh, R. K., Saxena, C., Aggarwal, S., Prerna, & Singh, Y. (2025). Bibliometric insights into the Indian Journal of Finance: Mapping intellectual contributions. Indian Journal of Finance, 19(5), 8–36. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2025/v19i5/175042

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010

Srikanth Reddy, J., Sharma, R., & Kumar Gupta, A. (2023). Trends and future directions of accreditations in higher education: Bibliometric analysis. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 16(6), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2023/v16i6/172863

Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British university system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4

UGC discontinues CARE List journals, switches to decentralised journal evaluation. (2025, February 11). The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/education/ugc-discontinues-care-list-journals-switches-to-decentralised-journal-evaluation/articleshow/118150336.cms

University Grants Commission. (2018). UGC regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education, 2018. https://www.ugc.gov.in/regulations/UGC_Regulations_university

University Grants Commission. (2022). UGC (Minimum standards and procedures for award of Ph.D. degree) regulations, 2022. https://www.ugc.gov.in/e-book/UGC_Regulation/files/basic-html/page565.html

University Grants Commission. (2025a, February 11). Public notice on discontinuation of UGC-CARE listing of journals and development of suggestive parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals. https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/9678711_PUBLIC-NOTICE-CARE.pdf

University Grants Commission. (2025b, July 16). Public notice: Suggestive parameters for choosing peer-reviewed journals by faculty members, students and higher educational institutions. UGC.

Vaidyanathan, G. (2019, June 13). No paper, no PhD? India rethinks graduate student policy. Nature Index. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/india-rethinks-graduate-student-policy