Radical journal gathers support

The scientific community appears to be fighting to convince Elsevier to continue to publish its only non-peer-reviewed journal, after the publisher began to linkurl:consider installing a traditional peer review system;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57121/ when the journal published a controversial paper supporting the arguments of AIDS deniers. Image: flicker/linkurl:meviola;http://www.flickr.com/photos/69659670@N00/ Despite the uproar that article created, the editor-in-chief of lin

Jef Akst

| 2 min read

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

Despite the uproar that article created, the editor-in-chief of linkurl:Medical Hypotheses;http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/description has received more than 150 letters of support for the journal's non-traditional publishing model, in which papers are chosen by the editor-in-chief, linkurl:Bruce Charlton.;http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicity/dofe/charlton.html "Medical Hypotheses has become an important vehicle for publishing exciting new ideas and information that is helping to shape the directions of medical research," linkurl:wrote;http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2010/02/medical-hypotheses-authors-letters-of.html linkurl:Paul W. Sherman;http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/sherman.shtml of Cornell University in New York. "Cancelling the journal, or massively altering its focus and editorial policies, would potentially deprive both the medical and biological communities of their only existing forum for interaction." Charlton, who has forwarded the majority of the letters on to Elsevier, is vying to keep the journal in its current form or have it discontinued altogether and not transformed into "an imposter having the same name," he wrote in an email to The Scientist. "I found it inspiring to realize that so many would take the trouble to write, and often at length," Charlton wrote. "These letters strongly reinforced my conviction that Medical Hypotheses, in its 35 years, has been a very worthwhile journal; one whose existence has made a significant and positive difference to the work of many scientists and scholars." The journal's editorial board also recently wrote to the publisher saying it did not approve of the proposals to introduce a peer-review system and exclude papers on controversial topics, linkurl:the Times Higher Education reported.;http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410489 Elsevier has not yet responded to the letter, Tom Reller, director of Corporate Relations at Elsevier, wrote in an email to The Scientist, and the fate of the journal is still undecided.
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Radical journal's fate at risk;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57121/
[27th January 2010]*linkurl:Elsevier published 6 fake journals;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/
[7th May 2009]*linkurl:Journal plays with peer review;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55394/
[3rd February 2009]*linkurl:Tackling peer review bias;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54893/
[28th July 2008]