Skip to Main Content

Earlier this year a Canadian medical ethicist published a doozy of an essay claiming that the heavyweight New England Journal of Medicine was poorly vetting its authors and publishing shoddy studies.

The piece drew lots of attention for those allegations. But what went unremarked, though perhaps just as notable, is the place where they appeared: The Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME).

The IJME isn’t on anyone’s list of most desirable places to publish. It’s not even indexed by Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science, which means it doesn’t have an official Impact Factor, used to rank journals. But for a relatively unknown and ostensibly local title — we hadn’t heard of it until a few months ago, and we have heard of an awful lot of journals — it has an impressive list of staff and contributors, and has been earning plaudits from the science community lately. Where did this mysterious journal come from?


Though the journal’s prominence is new, the forerunner to the IJME was actually founded more than two dozen years ago.

In the late 1980s, Amar Jesani, the journal’s current editor, and others joined the so-called Forum for Medical Ethics, an activist group pushing to reform the regulatory Maharashtra Medical Council. The Forum published the first issue of the journal — then called Medical Ethics — in August 1993.


The journal kept a local profile until about 2013, when it got involved in an effort to push the Indian government to more closely regulate clinical trials in that country. That led to Jesani’s appearance at a conference in Mexico, as well as involvement of the organization in the 2015 meeting of the World Association of Medical Editors, in Delhi. “This of course led to more closer interaction with many more people internationally on the issue of drug trials, data sharing, publication ethics, and so on,” Jesani said.

Since then they’ve published, both online and in print, some eye-catching papers. In August the IJME posted a lengthy and laudatory response to the Canadian medical ethicist Mark Wilson’s scathing essay on NEJM, by James Brophy, a highly cited cardiology researcher at McGill University. That same month it also published a letter from Ruth Macklin, a highly decorated emeritus professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who detailed her own adventures with what she perceived as editorial conflict and bias at NEJM.

Macklin has a particularly strong link to the IJME; she has served on the journal’s editorial board and has known Jesani for 20 years. “The journal is valuable as a forum for ethics issues no matter where the authors are based,” she told STAT. “It is peer-reviewed and has a rather rapid turnaround.”

Wilson agrees. “I find the scholarship at the IJME of high quality. I also think as an ethics journal it offers informed debate on issues that other journals might be more hesitant to take on and address forthrightly.” That’s why, he says, it was the first place he submitted his provocative essay.

And, importantly for an ethics journal, the IJME seems to be operating pretty ethically. It doesn’t charge authors a fee to publish, and its articles are available online to everyone for free (the print edition carries a modest annual subscription fee). It doesn’t accept advertising from drug companies or medical device manufacturers, Jesani said. The staff is 1.5 full-time employees — whose salaries are paid for by donations from individuals and philanthropies — and a cadre of volunteers.

Future issues of the journal will include articles on transparency in research, public disclosure of raw data, euthanasia, palliative care, and the actions of regulators of both health care providers and the drug industry, in India and abroad.

In other words, a healthy dose of what science needs right now. We’ll certainly be among its growing audience.

  • This is the same journal that published the article by a forged author, ?

    That article claims to be by “Lars Andersson ([email protected])
    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology
    Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Solna, SWEDEN”
    but the journal now admits this is not true.

    Was that ethical? And why should we trust a journal that doesn’t check authorship, or do peer review, of articles like this?

  • Dear readers,

    Please disregard my message at 4:46pm. It sounded racists and delivered without consideration or knowledge of India’s culture; one needs further data to make (potentially disparaging) conclusions.

  • I am very proud to be a member of the editorial board of this qualified and ethical Indian magazine. The Oransky and Marcus comment only increase our joy because portray a concept and an unquestionable truth about the magazine’s growth in the international arena.
    Congratulations to the authors and Amar Jesani

  • “The staff is 1.5 full-time employees”

    So, one full-time and one part time? Or is there half a person working at the journal?

  • India is a country where doctors will steal one of your kidneys and sell in black market if you don’t pay attention. They must read this ethics journal etc.

    • SamS, The regulatory mechanisms and processes in India have become stronger in recent years in the field of medicine. The layman also has become quite well informed. Your opinion must have been based on some newspaper articles published very long ago and hence is skewed. India is no longer the one under the ‘Raj’.
      One odd black sheep may be found in all professions and all countries. Please dont paint the whole community with one black stroke.

    • I would disagree with you except having bore witness routinely to common trends of trickery and deceit occurring in the states in academia and professional medical and biotech from immigrants; must be cultural differences.

Comments are closed.