Elsevier has recently decided to implement a series of major changes to its controversial journal, linkurl:Medical Hypotheses;http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/description#description -- including installing a traditional peer review process. This is an enormous break from the journal's previous approach to publishing, in which the former editor Bruce Charlton selected what to publish, and didn't shy away from papers that contain radical ideas. But when the journal published a controversial paper by AIDS denialist Peter Duesburg last summer, everything changed. linkurl:William Bains,;http://www.williambains.co.uk/ a researcher and biotech entrepreneur and a member of the editorial board, spoke with The Scientist about the big mistake he believes Elsevier is making, and why many members of the board plan to resign in response.
Image: flicker/linkurl:meviola;http://www.flickr.com/photos/69659670@N00/
The Scientist: What did you think of Medical Hypotheses's previous editorial process? William Bains: I think it worked pretty well. [Traditional peer review] is always going to select against things that...
Medical HypothesesTS:WB:Medical HypothesesTS:WB:Medical HypothesesMedical HypothesesTS:WB:TS:Medical HypothesesWB:Medical HypothesesTS:WB:Medical Hypotheses

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?