Radical journal's fate at risk

A panel has recommended that life science publishing giant Elsevier tame its most radical journal by making it choose papers via peer review -- not editor's choice -- and limiting the topics it covers. Image: flicker/linkurl:meviola;http://www.flickr.com/photos/69659670@N00/ linkurl:Medical Hypotheses;http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/description is currently Elsevier's only non-peer-reviewed journal. linkurl:Its mandate;http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa

Jef Akst

| 2 min read

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

linkurl:Medical Hypotheses;http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/description is currently Elsevier's only non-peer-reviewed journal. linkurl:Its mandate;http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions is to publish interesting theoretical papers, including radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas. But a hubbub surrounding the publication of two AIDS denialist papers last July has the publisher considering adopting a peer review system for the journal -- a change that the journal's editor-in-chief sees as a travesty that will destroy its value. "It seems clear that Elsevier currently plan[s] to kill this 34-year-old journal, but to disguise the murder by continuing it as a kind of 'Zombie' Medical Hypotheses," linkurl:Bruce Charlton,;http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/publicity/dofe/charlton.html a professor of theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham and editor-in-chief of the journal, wrote in an email to The Scientist. For Elsevier to institute such changes while continuing to enjoy the profits generated by the 34-year reputation of a radical and editorially-reviewed journal would be "unethical," added Charlton. The paper that sparked the kerfuffle was authored by well-known AIDS denialist linkurl:Peter Duesberg;http://mcb.berkeley.edu/index.php?option=com_mcbfaculty&name=duesbergp of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues. It claimed there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS and stirred quite a controversy in the scientific community, prompting AIDS researchers to complain to Elsevier that its publication could have negative implications for global healthcare, the linkurl:Times Higher Education reported.;http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409997&c=2 The publisher responded by retracting Duesberg's paper, as well as another AIDS denialism paper that ran in Medical Hypotheses that same month. Charlton stands by his decision to publish these papers in the journal, and argues that Elsevier's decision to retract them was its "primary mistake." This action "created, then amplified a problem where none would have existed," he said. While the journal's aims clearly state that "papers chosen may contain radical ideas, but may be judged acceptable so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed," an external panel of experts assembled by Elsevier following the retractions proposed that traditional peer review of papers be instituted, that controversial articles be carefully reviewed, and even that certain topics -- such as"'scientific' hypotheses that could be interpreted as supporting racism" -- be banned. Elsevier outlined these and the panel's other suggestions to the board in a letter last week. Those changes, though, would effectively create "the antithesis" of what the journal was meant to be, Charlton maintains; he believes the journal should be "allowed to continue without change to personnel, mission or methods." Tom Reller, Director of Corporate Relations at Elsevier, said that Elsevier has invited Charlton to discuss the potential changes, and that they hope to resolve these issues by the end of the year. Reller admits, however, that "there's never really any specific time table for these sorts of things. It's going to be as long as it takes for us to reach a consensus with Bruce."
**__Related stories:__***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]