Medical Hypotheses

Medical Hypotheses

Discipline	Medical theory
Peer-reviewed	No
Language	English
Edited by	Bruce G. Charlton
Publication details
History	since 1975
Publisher	Eden Press from 1975 Elsevier since 2002 (United States)
Frequency	monthly
Impact factor	1.416 (2008)
Standard abbreviations ISO 4 (alt) · Bluebook (alt1 · alt2) NLM (alt) · MathSciNet (alt )
ISO 4	Med Hypotheses
Indexing CODEN (alt · alt2) · JSTOR (alt) · LCCN (alt) MIAR · NLM (alt) · Scopus
ISSN	0306-9877 (print) 1532-2777 (web)
OCLC no.	01357097
Links
Journal homepage

Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal published by Elsevier and intended to provide a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review. According to the journal's website, it publishes "radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed" and "interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives." Submitted papers are not sent to other scientists for review, but are chosen instead by the journal's editor-in-chief based on whether s/he considers the submitted work interesting and important. The journal's policy places full responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of publications on the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor. Medical Hypotheses is the only Elsevier journal not to practice peer review.

Many Medical Hypotheses articles have received widespread dissemination and discussion for positing interesting theories or ideas. The journal's willingness to publish non-mainstream ideas, as well as its editorial policies, have drawn both support and criticism from some parts of the scientific community.

Founding and editorship

Medical Hypotheses was founded by in 1975 by physiologist David Horrobin, who was the editor-in-chief of the journal until his death in 2003 as well as the head of the Schizophrenia Association in Britain. Horrobin was a controversial figure best known for his promotion of evening primrose oil as a treatment for diseases, leading the British Medical Journal (BMJ) to predict that he "may prove to be the greatest snake oil salesman of his age." Horrobin wrote in his inaugural editorial for Medical Hypotheses: "The history of science has repeatedly shown that when hypotheses are proposed it is impossible to predict which will turn out to be revolutionary and which ridiculous. The only safe approach is to let all see the light and to let all be discussed, experimented upon, vindicated or destroyed. I hope the journal will provide a new battlefield open to all on which ideas can be tested and put through the fire." In its first edition, Medical Hypotheses published articles from its editorial review board member, virologist Frank Macfarlane Burnet, in vitro fertilization pioneer Ian Johnston, Gerald Kolodny of Beth Israel Medical Center, and Tom Tenforde, later chief scientist of the United States Department of Energy.

After Horrobin's death, Bruce G. Charlton became editor-in-chief. The editor makes publication decisions, with the informal assistance of an advisory board. Notable members of the board include behavioral neurologist António Damásio, cognitive neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, surgical pioneer Roy Calne, psychiatrist David Healy, philosopher David Pearce, and the Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson. Its 2008 impact factor was 1.416. Founding members of the editorial advisory board included Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, virologist Frank Macfarlane Burnet, neurophysiologist John Eccles, physiologist Arthur Guyton, and philosopher Karl Popper.

Medical Hypotheses was initially published by Eden Press. Elsevier has been its publisher since 2002.

Research

An article concerning dementia and musical memory written by psychologist Lola Cuddy and physician Jacalyn Duffin of Queen's University appeared in Medical Hypotheses in 2005 and was subsequently cited by Oliver Sacks in his book Musicophilia. The article was one of the first relating to the topic, which has since been addressed in peer-reviewed research by Cuddy and Duffin along with other researchers.

The journal chooses one article a year for the David Horrobin Prize, given to the article which best embodies the spirit of the journal. The 2008 judge for the Horrobin Prize was British physician and researcher David Weatherall. The winner of the 2006 prize was psychologist Judith Rich Harris.

A 1987 paper which theorized whether bacterial toxins cause sudden infant death syndrome is now the leading theory for causes of SIDS and was cited in at least three high-profile court cases, including the trials of Sally Clark and Donna Anthony. In 2005, Wake Forest University medical researcher John Spangler published an article regarding studies he had conducted which showed a risk of manganese inhalation from showers.

Coverage and controversy

Medical Hypotheses has been criticised for its lack of peer review and for its decision to publish several controversial articles. In what The Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre called an "almost surreally crass paper", two Medical Hypotheses authors posited "mongoloid" as an accurate term for people with Down syndrome because those with Down's share characteristics with people of Asian origin, including a reported interest in crafts, sitting with crossed legs and eating foods containing monosodium glutamate (MSG). Other papers have presented masturbation as a treatment for nasal congestion.

In 2009, the journal's publisher, Elsevier, withdrew two articles written by AIDS denialists that had been accepted for publication. One of the articles reportedly claimed that AIDS was not responsible for deaths in Africa and misrepresented the results of medical research on antiretroviral drugs. The withdrawal followed a campaign by concerned scientists who criticised the articles' factual accuracy and the process behind their acceptance. The publisher stated that the articles "could potentially be damaging to global public health. Concern has also been expressed that the article contains potentially libelous material. Given these important signals of concern, we judge it correct to investigate the circumstances in which this article came to be published online." A group of 20 HIV scientists and advocates contacted the National Library of Medicine to request that the journal be removed from the MEDLINE database alleging that the journal lacked scientific rigor and had become a "tool for the legitimization of at least one pseudoscientific movement [AIDS denialism]." An article in AIDS and Behavior argued that "Medical Hypotheses has long been "a source of concern in the scientific community" because of a "disturbing track record of publishing pseudo-science."

A review panel convened by Elsevier recommended that Medical Hypotheses adopt some form of peer review to avoid publication of "baseless, speculative, non-testable and potentially harmful ideas". The panel also suggested that racist, mysogynistic and eugenicist hypotheses be declared off limits. Editor Bruce Charlton said that peer review went against the journal's 30-year history and is not supported by either him or the journal's editorial board.

Charlton said that he received more than 150 letters of support from scientists for the continuation of Medical Hypotheses as is, which he forwarded to Elsevier. In a joint letter, Lola Cuddy and Jacalyn Duffin pointed out that two other medical journals, Elsevier's Lancet along with the New England Journal of Medicine, had also retracted articles due to errors; Lancet retracted a 1998 article concerning the link between autism and MMR vaccines, and NEJM a 2000 article concerning the drug Vioxx in which a treatment-related death had been withheld by the authors. JA Morris, who has published his research on SIDS in Medical Hypotheses along with conventional medical journals, wrote that Medical Hypotheses is needed because "the idea comes before the proof, in this case many years before the proof, and we need journals that will publish at the idea stage." Paul Sherman of Cornell University wrote: "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."