Journal editor facing axe

Elsevier has asked the editor-in-chief of its only non-peer-reviewed journal, linkurl:Medical Hypotheses,;https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/description to either resign immediately or implement a series of changes, including a traditional peer-review system. Image: flicker/linkurl:meviola;https://www.flickr.com/photos/69659670@N00/ The journal's editor-in-chief linkurl:Bruce Charlton;https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicity/dofe/charlton.html told The Scientist tha

Written byJef Akst

| 2 min read

Save for Later

Elsevier has asked the editor-in-chief of its only non-peer-reviewed journal, linkurl:Medical Hypotheses,;https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/description to either resign immediately or implement a series of changes, including a traditional peer-review system.

Image: flicker/linkurl:meviola;https://www.flickr.com/photos/69659670@N00/

The journal's editor-in-chief linkurl:Bruce Charlton;https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicity/dofe/charlton.html told The Scientist that such changes are "vehemently opposed" by the editorial advisory board, as well as at least 150 scientists who have published in the journal. Elsevier has given him until next Monday (March 15) to respond, and he said he is still contemplating his decision. In addition to instituting a peer-review system, an external advisory board assembled by Elsevier also recommends that articles on controversial subjects, such as any that support racism, not be considered for publication. Elsevier has also given Charlton notice that his contract will be "terminated" at the end of this year, Charlton said. "My understanding is that Elsevier will indeed appoint a new editor and make the changes while keeping the same title," he explained, a move that he considers "dishonest" and "unethical." "The editorial advisory board and I agree that we would much rather the title expired altogether, than that an 'anti-Medical Hypotheses' journal continued to trade on its past reputation," Charlton wrote in an email. Medical Hypotheses has been in hot water since earlier this year, after AIDS researchers complained about an article it ran by AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg. The journal currently aims to publish provocative papers, which are selected by Charlton. Editor's note: Elsevier responded to The Scientist after the publication of this story acknowledging that it had accepted the external panel's recommendations for the journal. The publisher also clarified that should Charlton stay with the journal for the immediate future, his contract would not be renewed at the end of the year, as opposed to "terminated" before its completion.
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Radical journal gathers support;https://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57190/
[ 26th February 2010]*linkurl:Radical journal's fate at risk;https://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57121/
[27th January 2010]*linkurl:Elsevier published 6 fake journals;https://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/
[7th May 2009]*linkurl:Journal plays with peer review;https://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55394/
[3rd February 2009]

Meet the Author

Jef Akst

Jef (an unusual nickname for Jennifer) got her master’s degree from Indiana University in April 2009 studying the mating behavior of seahorses. After four years of diving off the Gulf Coast of Tampa and performing behavioral experiments at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga, she left research to pursue a career in science writing. As The Scientist's managing editor, Jef edited features and oversaw the production of the TS Digest and quarterly print magazine. In 2022, her feature on uterus transplantation earned first place in the trade category of the Awards for Excellence in Health Care Journalism. She is a member of the National Association of Science Writers.

View Full Profile