
Academic Journal
Q1Medical Law Review
About Medical Law Review
About Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by Oxford University Press (United Kingdom). It focuses on Q1. Publication coverage spans 1993-2026.
Key indicators: ISSN 1464-3790, 0967-0742; H-index 38.
Understanding This Journal's Metrics
Journal metrics help researchers assess fit, but they must be interpreted in context:
- H-index (38): 38 articles have each received at least 38 citations, indicating growing recognition.
Publishing in Medical Law Review
When considering this journal, verify its current indexing status, editorial board, and recent publications to ensure it meets your needs for visibility and credibility.
- Scope fit: Confirm your research aligns with Q1. Off-scope manuscripts are typically desk-rejected quickly.
- Author guidelines: Follow formatting, reference style, and article-type requirements exactly — non-compliant manuscripts may be returned without review.
- Submission: Submit via the official journal website.
Is This Journal Right for Your Paper?
- Audience match: Will the journal's readers cite and build on your findings?
- Timeline: Higher-tier journals mean longer review and higher rejection risk. Balance prestige against your schedule.
- Indexing: Confirm indexing in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed (if biomedical) meets your institutional requirements.
- Open access needs: Check funder mandates and whether the journal offers compliant OA options.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ISSN of Medical Law Review?
1464-3790, 0967-0742.
Who publishes Medical Law Review?
Oxford University Press.
What are Medical Law Review's metrics?
H-index 38.
Where do I submit to Medical Law Review?
Via the official website.
Is Medical Law Review peer-reviewed?
Yes — it is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal indexed in major academic databases.
Source-backed journal facts
Topics in published research
Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare; Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues; Reproductive Health and Technologies; Patient Dignity and Privacy; Ethics in medical practice; Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints.
OpenAlex classifies topics from published works. These topics are not the publisher’s official aims and scope.
Reported open-access list prices
3,067.00 GBP
APC list prices reported by OpenAlex, which obtains this information from DOAJ. Confirm current charges, taxes, waivers and eligibility with the publisher; this is not a fee quotation.
Source: OpenAlex source record. Retrieved 2026-10-03. Source record updated 2026-10-02. OpenAlex metrics are different from SCImago metrics and the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.
Journal Metrics
Quartile, SJR and the listed SCImago H-index use the 2025 imported SCImago dataset. A quartile may vary by subject category. Values without a source or reporting year are unverified historical entries. Verify the current Journal Impact Factor with Clarivate or the publisher before using it.
Aims & Scope
The publisher’s official aims and scope have not yet been verified for this profile. Use the journal website to check subject fit and accepted article types before submitting.
Recent Research Articles
Latest publications matched automatically by ISSN.
The public sector equality duty’s role in planning the commissioning of healthcare services for older patients: a justice perspective
Yvoni Komodromou
2026-01-15 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag006Critical analysis of the EU’s legislative proposal to incentivize investment in antimicrobial R&D and access
Laura Valtere
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag010What’s in a name? Abbasi and Another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust ; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15
Rebecca Jeyaraj, Emma Cave, David Archard, Joe Brierley et al.
2026-01-15 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaf047Accommodating capacity-restoring interventions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Daisy Cheung
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag013Compulsory feeding, capacity, and the limits of the Court of Protection: Re Patricia
Rachel Jenkins
2026-10-05 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag033The ticking of the (non-biological) clock for consent renewal: AA v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2026] EWHC 317 (Fam)
Philippa Kemp
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag028Mothers beyond tradition: legal and psychosocial dimensions of single motherhood through assisted reproduction in Kosovo and the Western Balkans
Doruntinë Demiri, Mariel Leclere
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag018Autonomy undermined: how NHS institutional culture fails pregnant patients
Mélinée Kazarian, Dani O’Connor
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag027Welfare paternalism and the paradox of protection: towards a rights-based framework to mediate the deprivation of liberty of children
Clayton Ó Néill
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag029CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5: recovery for loss of earnings in the ‘lost years’ by an injured young child
Sirko Harder
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag017Situational status and moral incoherence in UK bio-law
Johnny Sakr
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag021Townsend v Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and the myth of the clinical carve out
Cressida Auckland
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag032Oversight of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada: perspectives of MAiD assessors/providers and organizational regulatory actors
Eliana Close, Jocelyn Downie, Ben P White
2026-01-15 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag004The promise of the EU’s draft repurposing programme
Gabriela Lenarczyk, Johnathon Liddicoat
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag011Nobody does it better? A judicial rationalization of judges as best interests decision-makers— RE RS (Best Interests: Surgery and Intensive Care) [2025] EWCOP 38 (T3)
John Coggon
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag008Towards improved understandings of medical manslaughter: fatal medical error, accountability, and wider paths to learning
Danielle Griffiths
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag031Freedom isn’t free: resource limits on person-centred best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act
Giles Birchley, Aoife Finnerty
2026-01-15 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag001Ten years on: a ‘ Montgomery map’ for healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom and Beyond
Rachael P Mulheron
2026-04-14 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag012Deferring to the regulator and prioritizing public health: British Standards Institute v RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd, R (On The Application Of) [2024] EWCA Civ 530
Laura Downey
2026-07-08 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwag026Re QX (Parental Consent for Deprivation of Liberty: Children under 16) [2025] EWHC 745 (Fam): Parental consent and deprivation of liberty
Clayton Ó Néill
2026-01-15 · DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaf048Reviews
Community Reviews
Version History
October 9, 2026 at 10:16 pm
October 2, 2026