Q&A: Medical Hypotheses 2.0

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 jour

Written byJef Akst

| 3 min read

Save for Later

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 are pushing the boundaries because there will be somebody there that says, "I don't believe it." And I think there's a very important place for papers that do push the boundaries a bit -- say, "Everybody accepted x, y, and z, but just possibly x was wrong." And I believe Medical Hypotheses has been doing that, been doing that for quite a long time. Virtually all the time, Bruce did a very good job, and occasionally he made choices that other people thought were a bit suspect, shall we say. But that comes with the territory. TS: What do you think of Elsevier's decision to institute a traditional peer review system? WB: I think it's a great pity. Medical Hypotheses has clearly played a useful role in the scientific process. We know this because its impact factor's gone up; the scientific community, as represented by life science paper authors, think that the process that generates those papers is a valuable one. To try to change the fundamental nature of what the journal is, I think is a shame. TS: What do you think about Bruce Charlton's refusal to institute such a system, and Elsevier's decision to terminate his contract? WB: I don't think Bruce really had any choice. He had stated in many fora, including a number of editorials in Medical Hypotheses, why he edits the journal as he does, or as he did. He explained that he believed very strongly that peer review is not conducive to some sorts of research, that it suppresses some types of innovative thought, and it's valuable to get that thought out there and that's what Medical Hypotheses was there for. He's a man of deep convictions on these matters, born out of a great deal of thought, and he said, "I'm not going to institute this peer review process. I don't believe it's the right thing for the journal." TS: What do you and the rest of the editorial board plan to do? WB: I've heard back from seven of the board members, four of which have already resigned, two of which [have] said to me they intend to resign, and one of whom hasn't stated either way, but has written a long and impassioned letter to the CEO of Elsevier saying this is an extremely bad decision, and it's going to destroy the journal. So I'd expect a large majority of the editorial board to resign. I will be resigning too, almost certainly. TS: What do you think will become of Medical Hypotheses? WB: We'll have to see, but it won't be Medical Hypotheses anymore in any meaningful sense, in my view. It will be a publication that happens to have the same name; there won't be much left of the original character of the journal. TS: What about the possibility of creating another journal that keeps these principles? WB: That's something I am currently setting up. Back in about 2006, we started discussing setting up a bioscience spinoff for Medical Hypotheses, which we started in 2008. I edited that, and that seemed to go quite well. Elsevier shut it down at the end of 2009 for a variety of reasons, but I thought it was a good project so I immediately started looking around for another publisher or to start up a new journal. So that's what we're doing, and we hope to be announcing the launch of that in a few weeks' time.
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Journal editor facing axe;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57204/
[8th March 2010]*linkurl:Radical journal gathers support;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57190/
[ 26th February 2010]*linkurl:Radical journal's fate at risk;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57121/
[27th January 2010]

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