Medical Hypotheses

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Medical Hypotheses
OCLC no.
01357097
Links

Medical Hypotheses is a not-conventionally-

peer-reviewed[1] medical journal published by Elsevier. It was originally intended as a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review, "as long as (the ideas) are coherent and clearly expressed" in order to "foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives."[2]
The publication of papers on
AIDS denialism[3][4][5] led to calls to remove it from PubMed, the United States National Library of Medicine online journal database.[4] Following the AIDS papers controversy, Elsevier forced a change in the journal's leadership. In June 2010, Elsevier announced that "submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit".[6]

According to the Journal Citation Reports, Medical Hypotheses has a 2020 impact factor of 1.538.[7]

Founding and editorship

Medical Hypotheses was founded in 1975 by physiologist

Frank Macfarlane Burnet, in vitro fertilization pioneer Ian Johnston, Gerald Kolodny of Beth Israel Medical Center, and Tom Tenforde, later chief scientist of the United States Department of Energy.[10]

After Horrobin's death,

Roy Calne, psychiatrist David Healy, philosopher David Pearce, and the Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson.[13] Mehar Manku became the editor of Medical Hypotheses after Charlton was fired in 2010.[14]

Medical Hypotheses was initially published by Eden Press. Elsevier has been its publisher since 2002.

Abstracting and indexing

The journal is abstracted and indexed in the

Medline in January 2022.[16]

Research

The most widely cited article

monoamine theory of depression.[18][19][20]
Other famous articles featured in the journal include the proposal from Jarl Flensmark of Malmö, Sweden, that schizophrenia may be caused by wearing heeled shoes,[21] and an article from Svetlana Komarova of McGill University positing that facial hair may play a role in preventing the development of cancer.[22]

In what

navel lint "became an instant classic".[3][26]

In 2007, journalist Roger Dobson published a book in which he collected and described 100 Medical Hypotheses articles called Death Can Be Cured.[27][28]

Peer review debate

Horrobin began the journal in response to what he viewed as the limitations of peer review.[3] He wrote, "The primary criteria for acceptance are very different from the usual journals. In essence what I look for are answers to two questions only: Is there some biological plausibility to what the author is saying? Is the paper readable? We are NOT looking at whether or not the paper is true but merely at whether it is interesting."[12] According to physiologist

Vilayanur Ramachandran, who is on the journal's editorial review board, told Science: "There are ideas that may seem implausible but which are very important if true. This is the only place you can get them published."[3]

At October 2012, an international campaign involving 198 scientists published a critical article defending Bruce Charlton and the idea of editorial review.[30]

AIDS denialism papers and fallout

In 2009, the journal's publisher, Elsevier, withdrew two articles written by

cherry-picking and other dishonest claims.[32] The publisher stated that the articles "could potentially be damaging to global public health. Concern has also been expressed that the article contains potentially libelous material. Given these important signals of concern, we judge it correct to investigate the circumstances in which this article came to be published online."[31]

The withdrawal followed a campaign by scientists who criticised the articles' factual accuracy and the process behind their acceptance.

National Library of Medicine had been requested to review the journal "for de-selection from PubMed on the grounds that it was not peer-reviewed and had a disturbing track record of publishing pseudo-science."[4] Nattrass later wrote that as a result of the controversy, Science reported that Elsevier had asked that the journal's editor either raise the standards of review or resign.[34] A review panel convened by Elsevier recommended that Medical Hypotheses adopt some form of peer review to avoid publication of "baseless, speculative, non-testable and potentially harmful ideas". Editor Bruce Charlton said that peer review went against the journal's 30-year history and is not supported by either him or the journal's editorial board.[35] Elsevier reportedly told Charlton that his position would not be renewed at the end of the year, and Charlton said he would not resign.[11] On 11 May 2010 Bruce Charlton announced on his blog that he "was sacked" by Elsevier.[36][self-published source?
]

Of the journal's 19 editorial board members, 13 wrote to Elsevier in protest over the decision to change the journal's editorial policies.[3] The group of scientists wrote that not having peer review "is an integral part of our identity, indeed our very raison d'être," and they would resign their positions if it was instituted.[3] One of the members, David Healy of the University of Cardiff School of Medicine, said that the review board members' letter was "a defense of Bruce, not of the Duesberg paper."[3] In contrast, board member António Damásio said that the paper should not have been published on the journal's website.[3]

In June 2010, Elsevier announced the appointment of Mehar Manku as the new editor, and stated that "submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit. All reviewers will be fully aware of the Aims and Scope of the journal and will be judging the premise, originality and plausibility of the hypotheses submitted."[37] Manku was previously the Editor of Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, another journal founded by Horrobin.[38]

References

  1. ^ Enserink, Martin (2010-06-25). "New Medical Hypotheses Editor Promises Not to Stir Up Controversy". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 2019-10-17. It's not a classical peer review system. I call it a Medical Hypotheses custom-made review system.
  2. Science Daily
    . 4 July 2005. Retrieved 2010-03-08.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Enserink, Martin (8 March 2010). "Elsevier Fires Journal Editor Over Paper Saying HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS". Science. Archived from the original on 12 March 2010. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
  4. ^
    S2CID 26273036
    .
  5. ^ a b Abdool Karim SS, et al. (August 5, 2009). "Letter to the National Library of Medicine Literature Selection Technical Review Committee" (PDF). Aidstruth.org. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
  6. ^ "Elsevier Announces New Medical Hypotheses Editor-In-Chief". Elsevier (Press release). 24 June 2010. Archived from the original on 11 October 2012. Retrieved 24 May 2019.
  7. ^ "Medical Hypotheses". 2020 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2021.
  8. Independent.co.uk. 17 April 2003. Archived from the original
    on March 13, 2010.
  9. PMC 164952
    .
  10. ^
    PMID 1202322
    .
  11. ^ a b "Elsevier Fires Journal Editor Over Paper Saying HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS". Chronicle of Higher Education. 10 March 2010. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
  12. ^ a b Bruce Charlton (31 March 2011). "David Horrobin's letter handing-over Medical Hypotheses editorship". medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk.
  13. ^ Medical Hypotheses editorial board. Elsevier. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  14. ^ "New Medical Hypotheses Editor Promises Not to Stir Up Controversy" Martin Enserink, ScienceInsider, 25 June 2010.
  15. ^ "Medical Hypotheses". Elsevier. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  16. ^ "Medical hypotheses. - NLM Catalog - NCBI". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2023-08-02.
  17. ^ according to Web of Science
  18. ISBN 978-0-306-46135-4
    .
  19. ISBN 978-0-471-98671-3
    .
  20. ISBN 978-0-387-76677-5
    .
  21. ^ Abrahams, Marc (15 November 2004). "Heel thyself". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
  22. PMID 16690220
    .
  23. ^ a b c Goldacre, Ben (11 September 2009). "Peer review is flawed but the best we've got". The Guardian. UK.
  24. PMID 18434036
    .
  25. PMID 18723292
    .
  26. ^ Sawer, Patrick (28 February 2009). "Revealed: The secrets of belly button fluff". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  27. ^ Abrahams, Marc (25 August 2009). "Gentlemen prefer blondes: fact?". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 2010-03-09.
  28. PMID 18280670
    .
  29. PMID 15085824
    .
  30. S2CID 254788442
    .
  31. ^
    PMID 19619953
    .
  32. PMID 21314689
    .
  33. ^ "Elsevier retracts Duesberg's AIDS Denialist article". www.aidstruth.org. 9 September 2009.
  34. ^ Martin Enserink, Elsevier to Editor: Change Controversial Journal or Resign Archived 2010-03-12 at the Wayback Machine. Science, March 8, 2010
  35. ^ Corbyn, Zoë (23 January 2010). "Publisher attempts to rein in radical medical journal". Times Higher Education. UK.
  36. ^ Charlton, Bruce (11 May 2010). "Medical Hypotheses: RIP Medical Hypotheses". medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com.
  37. ^ "Elsevier Announces New Medical Hypotheses Editor-In-Chief". www.elsevier.com. Retrieved 2018-12-08.
  38. PMC 1125787
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_Hypotheses&oldid=1214378337"