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.
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...
The ScientistMedical HypothesesTimes Higher EducationThe Scientist
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?