Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 11 December 2009 (um, its not. The editor reviews it for ''coherence'', not quality - for that it relies on the author. It's essentially self-published). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Distinguish2

Medical Hypotheses

Discipline	Medical theory
Peer-reviewed	No
Language	English
Edited by	Bruce G. Charlton
Publication details
History	since 1975
Publisher	Eden Press from 1975 Elsevier since 2002 (United States)
Frequency	monthly
Impact factor	1.416 (2008)
Standard abbreviations ISO 4 (alt) · Bluebook (alt) NLM (alt) · MathSciNet (alt )
ISO 4	Med Hypotheses
Indexing CODEN (alt · alt2) · JSTOR (alt) · LCCN (alt) MIAR · NLM (alt) · Scopus
ISSN	0306-9877 (print) 1532-2777 (web)
OCLC no.	01357097
Links
Journal homepage

Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal published initially in 1975 by Eden Press, and since 2002 by Elsevier that is intended to provide a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review. According to the journal's website, it publishes "radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed." Submitted papers are not sent to other scientists for peer review, but are chosen instead by the journal's editor-in-chief based on whether he or she considers the submitted work interesting and important. The journal's policy places full responsiblity on the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor, for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work.

The journal's focus on "radical" and non-mainstream ideas, as well as its editorial policies, have drawn criticism from some parts of the scientific community. After two articles by AIDS denialists were published in Medical Hypotheses in 2009, a group of 20 HIV scientists and advocates contacted the National Library of Medicine requesting that the journal be removed from the MEDLINE database on grounds that the journal lacked scientific rigor and had become a "tool for the legitimization of at least one pseudoscientific movement ." An article in AIDS and Behavior argued that "Medical Hypotheses has long been a source of concern in the scientific community" because of a "disturbing track record of publishing pseudo-science."

Founding and editorship

Medical Hypotheses was founded by in 1975 by David Horrobin, who was the editor-in-chief of the journal until his death in 2003. Horrobin was a controversial figure best known for his promotion of evening primrose oil as a treatment for diseases, leading the British Medical Journal (BMJ) to predict that he "may prove to be the greatest snake oil salesman of his age."

After Horrobin's death, Bruce G. Charlton became editor-in-chief. The editor makes publication decisions, with the informal assistance of an advisory board. In mid-2008, notable members of the board included António Damásio, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, David Healy and the Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson. Its 2008 impact factor was 1.416.

Coverage and controversy

Medical Hypotheses has been criticised for its lack of peer review and for its decision to publish several controversial articles. In what The Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre called an "almost surreally crass paper", two Medical Hypotheses authors posited "mongoloid" as an accurate term for people with Down syndrome because those with Down's share characteristics with people of Asian origin, including a reported interest in crafts, sitting with crossed legs and eating foods containing monosodium glutamate (MSG). Other papers have presented masturbation as a treatment for nasal congestion.

In 2009, the journal's publisher, Elsevier, withdrew two articles written by AIDS denialists that had been accepted for publication. One of the articles reportedly claimed that AIDS was not responsible for deaths in Africa and misrepresented the results of medical research on antiretroviral drugs. The withdrawal followed a campaign by concerned scientists who criticised the articles' factual accuracy and the process behind their acceptance. 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."

References

1. "Medical Hypotheses". Elsevier. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
2. "Letter to the National Library of Medicine Literature Selection Technical Review Committee" (PDF). Aidstruth.org. August 5, 2009. Retrieved December 8, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
3. Nattrass N (2009). "Still Crazy After All These Years: The Challenge of AIDS Denialism for Science". AIDS Behav. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z. PMID 19937271. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
4. "David Horrobin. Founder of Scotia Pharmaceuticals and the journal Medical Hypotheses, and passionate promoter of evening primrose oil"
5. "Medical Hypotheses editorial board". Elsevier. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
6. 2008 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition. Thomson Reuters.
7. ^ Goldacre, Ben (11 September, 2009). "Peer review is flawed but the best we've got". The Guardian. UK. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
8. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.010, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.010 instead.
9. AIDSTruth.org
10. Elsevier statement on PubMed

• Articles with outdated impact factors from 2008
• Medical journals