Letter
Editorial bias, nepotism, and the “club culture” in Indian medical journals
We are compelled to address a persistent and troubling issue in Indian medical publishing: the widespread favouritism in editorial decisions. Many Indian journals, rather than serving as impartial scientific platforms, frequently operate in ways that benefit their editorial board members and close associates [1]. As a result, well-researched manuscripts from those outside these circles often encounter unexplained desk rejections or prolonged delays, while submissions from close associates are expedited for publication [2].
Copyright and license ©Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2025: Open Access and Distributed under the Creative Commons license ( CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits only non-commercial and non-modified sharing in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
If this is the state of medical journals, the state of ayurvedic journals is even worse. Having known this, I have always submitted my ayurvedic research papers only to general medical publications such as IJME, BMJ Blogs etc.
Recently, with a view to make sure that I am not needlessly biased against them, I submitted a piece to one ayurvedic journal. After about a week came their two-word reply: Decline submission.
Not one word of the reviewer’s opinion was quoted. The editor, even after being specifically asked, wrote not a word in response. Maybe they feared that I would rebut their review in a future paper!
Science making needs both creativity and courage. Creativity advances knowledge and courage brings transparency. Journal editors, with a few exceptions, seem to lack both.
I endorse the concerns raised by Rana and Gurnal regarding editorial bias, nepotism, and the prevailing “club culture” in Indian medical publishing. Their observations resonate with the lived experience of many researchers across the country. I would, however, like to add these points to their writing.
First, inordinate delays in peer review should not be viewed as a benign administrative issue. When journals take unusually long to “review” submissions without providing updates, transparency, or reviewer comments, it inevitably raises questions. Several authors have privately expressed concern that during these extended timelines, ideas from their manuscripts may influence or even appear in publications authored by individuals associated with the editorial ecosystem. While it is impossible to verify intent, the opacity of the process itself creates fertile ground for mistrust. Time-bound review processes are not just good practice—they are essential safeguards against real or perceived intellectual mis-appropriation.
Second, the “club culture” is not unique to Indian journals. Even prominent Western journals display an implicit hierarchy in which high-profile authors or researchers from elite institutions appear to receive favourable outcomes. For instance, submissions from globally renowned institutions such as Harvard or Oxford often move through the pipeline with high acceptance. Whether this reflects scientific merit, brand prestige, or entrenched networks is an open question, but the perception of inequity is widespread. This global pattern underscores that the problem is systemic rather than purely regional.
Third, concerns about nepotism are not limited to journal publishing. Even at the level of research funding and protocol approval, similar dynamics can be observed. For example, many investigators feel that approval processes in institutions such as the ICMR are influenced, at least informally, by personal networks and reciprocal professional relationships. The sentiment of “you support my proposal, and I will support yours” is widely acknowledged in academic corridors, even if rarely discussed in formal spaces. Such perceptions—whether accurate or not—erode trust in national research governance systems.
These issues collectively point to a deeper structural problem: a lack of transparency at multiple levels of the academic ecosystem. Addressing editorial bias alone will not suffice unless parallel reforms are undertaken in peer review processes, publication practices, and research-approval mechanisms. By confronting these realities openly, the Indian scientific community can move toward a more equitable, credible, and ethically robust research environment. And, I commend the authors in bringing out this very pertinent and relevant issue and request the journal to send this letter to the National Medical Council for their review.