Medical Hypotheses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Med. Hypotheses)
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Medical Hypotheses and Research (ISSN 1545-6129).
Medical Hypotheses  
Medical Hypotheses.gif
Abbreviated title (ISO 4)
Med. Hypotheses
Discipline Medical theory
Peer-reviewed since June 2010
Language English
Edited by Mehar Manku
Publication details
Publisher
Eden Press from 1975, Elsevier since 2002
Publication history
1975-present
Frequency Monthly
1.054
Indexing
ISSN 0306-9877 (print)
1532-2777 (web)
CODEN MEHYDY
OCLC no. 01357097
Links

Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal published by Elsevier. It was originally intended as a forum for unconventional ideas without the traditional filter of scientific peer review, "as long as (the ideas) are coherent and clearly expressed" in order to "foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives."[1] Medical Hypotheses was the only Elsevier journal that did not send submitted papers to other scientists for review.[2] Articles were chosen instead by the journal's editor-in-chief based on whether he considered the submitted work interesting and important. The journal's policy placed full responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of publications on the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor.[3]

The publication of papers on AIDS denialism[4][5][6] led to calls to remove it from PubMed, the prestigious United States National Library of Medicine online journal database.[5] Following the AIDS papers controversy, Elsevier forced a change in the journal's leadership. Also the thiomersal controversy, "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years"[7] was published here.[8] In June 2010, Elsevier announced that "Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit", suggesting that peer review is now in place.[9]

Founding and editorship[edit]

Medical Hypotheses was founded 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.[10] Horrobin was a controversial figure, a scientist and entrepreneur 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."[4][11] 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."[12] 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.[12]

After Horrobin's death Bruce G. Charlton, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham, became the editor,[13] making publication decisions with the informal assistance of an advisory board. Horrobin had described Charlton as "the only person I really trust to take it over and run it in an open-minded fashion".[14] Notable members of the advisory board included 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.[15] Mehar Manku became the editor of Medical Hypotheses after Charlton was fired in 2010.[16]

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

Abstracting and indexing[edit]

The journal is abstracted and indexed in the Science Citation Index, Index Medicus/Medline, BIOSIS, Chemical Abstracts, BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, Current Contents/Life Sciences, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Reference Update, and SciSearch.[3]

Research[edit]

The most widely cited article[17] from Medical Hypotheses was published in 1991 by Ronald S. Smith in which he proposed the macrophage theory of depression as an alternative to the monoamine theory of depression.[18][19][20] Other famous articles featured in the journal include the proposal from Jarl Flensmark of Malmo, Sweden, that schizophrenia may be caused by wearing heeled shoes,[21] and an article from Svetlana Komarova of McGill University positing that facial hair may play a role in preventing the development of cancer.[22]

In what psychiatrist and 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).[23] Correspondence items have presented masturbation as a treatment for nasal congestion.[24][25] Science reported that a 2009 paper by Georg Steinhauser on navel lint "became an instant classic".[4][26]

In 2007, journalist Roger Dobson published a book in which he collected and described 100 Medical Hypotheses articles called Death Can Be Cured.[27][28]

Peer review debate[edit]

Horrobin began the journal in response to what he viewed as the limitations of peer review.[4] He wrote, "The primary criteria for acceptance are very different from the usual journals. In essence what I look for are answers to two questions only: Is there some biological plausibility to what the author is saying? Is the paper readable? We are NOT looking at whether or not the paper is true but merely at whether it is interesting."[29] According to physiologist John Stein, Horrobin believed from his days as an undergraduate that peer review encourages adherence to currently accepted ideas at the expense of innovation.[30] Also neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran, who is on the journal's editorial review board, told Science: "There are ideas that may seem implausible but which are very important if true. This is the only place you can get them published."[4]

AIDS denialism papers and fallout[edit]

In 2009, the journal's publisher, Elsevier, withdrew two articles written by AIDS denialists that had been accepted for publication. One of the withdrawn articles, written by Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick, claimed that there is "yet no proof that HIV causes AIDS" and was not responsible for deaths in South Africa that another paper had attributed to it and misrepresented the results of medical research on antiretroviral drugs.[23][31] 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."[31]

The withdrawal followed a campaign by scientists who criticised the articles' factual accuracy and the process behind their acceptance.[23][32] 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."[6] Economist Nicoli Nattrass wrote in an article in AIDS and Behavior that "Medical Hypotheses has long been a source of concern in the scientific community because the articles are not peer-reviewed," and that the National Library of Medicine had been requested to review the journal "for de-selection from PubMed on the grounds that it was not peer-reviewed and had a disturbing track record of publishing pseudo-science."[5]

As a result of the controversy, Science reported that Elsevier had asked that the journal's editor either raise the standards of review or resign.[33] 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". 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.[2] Elsevier reportedly told Charlton that his position would not be renewed at the end of the year, and Charlton said he would not resign.[13] On May 11, 2010 Bruce Charlton announced on his blog that he "was sacked" by Elsevier.[34]

Of the journal's 19 editorial board members, 13 wrote to Elsevier to protest the decision to change the journal's editorial policies.[4] The group of scientists wrote that not having peer review "is an integral part of our identity, indeed our very raison d'être," and they would resign their positions if it was instituted.[4] One of the members, David Healy of the University of Cardiff School of Medicine, said that the review board members' letter was "a defense of Bruce, not of the Duesberg paper."[4] In contrast, board member António Damásio said that the paper should not have been published on the journal's website.[4]

In June 2010, Elsevier announced the appointment of Mehar Manku as the new editor,[16] and stated that "(s)ubmitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit. All reviewers will be fully aware of the Aims and Scope of the journal and will be judging the premise, originality and plausibility of the hypotheses submitted." Manku was previously the Editor of Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids,[9] another journal founded by Horrobin.[35]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Does Manganese Inhaled From The Shower Represent A Public Health Threat?". Science Daily. 4 July 2005. Retrieved 2010-03-08. 
  2. ^ a b Corbyn, Zoë (23 January 2010). "Publisher attempts to rein in radical medical journal". Times Higher Education (UK). 
  3. ^ a b "Medical Hypotheses". Elsevier. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-08-01. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Enserink, Martin (8 March 2010). "Elsevier Fires Journal Editor Over Paper Saying HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS". Science. Retrieved 11 March 2010. 
  5. ^ a b c Nattrass, Nicoli (2009). "Still Crazy After All These Years: The Challenge of AIDS Denialism for Science". AIDS and Behavior 14 (2): 248–51. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z. PMID 19937271. 
  6. ^ a b Abdool Karim SS et al (August 5, 2009). "Letter to the National Library of Medicine Literature Selection Technical Review Committee" (PDF). Aidstruth.org. Retrieved December 8, 2009. 
  7. ^ Flaherty DK (October 2011). "The Vaccine-autism Connection: A Public Health Crisis Caused by Unethical Medical Practices and Fraudulent Science". Ann Pharmacother 45 (10): 1302–4. doi:10.1345/aph.1Q318. PMID 21917556
  8. ^ Bernard S, Enayati A, Redwood L, Roger H, Binstock T (2001). "Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning". Med Hypotheses 56 (4): 462–71. doi:10.1054/mehy.2000.1281. PMID 11339848.
  9. ^ a b http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01563[full citation needed]
  10. ^ "David Horrobin: Champion of evening primrose oil"[dead link]
  11. ^ Marks, Naomi (2003). "Was BMJ dead wrong to print critical obituary?". Canadian Medical Association Journal 169 (1): 54. PMC 164952. 
  12. ^ a b Horrobin, David F. (1975). "Ideas in biomedical science: Reasons for the foundation of Medical Hypotheses". Medical Hypotheses 1 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(75)90032-8. PMID 1202322. 
  13. ^ a b "Elsevier Fires Journal Editor Over Paper Saying HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS". Chronicle of Higher Education. 10 March 2010. Retrieved 10 March 2010. 
  14. ^ http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/david-horrobins-letter-handing-over.html
  15. ^ "Medical Hypotheses editorial board". Elsevier. 2008-07-31. Retrieved 2008-08-01. 
  16. ^ a b "New Medical Hypotheses Editor Promises Not to Stir Up Controversy" Martin Enserink, ScienceInsider, 25 June 2010.
  17. ^ according to Web of Science
  18. ^ Dantzer, Robert (1999). Cytokines, Stress, and Depression. Springer. pp. v, 259. ISBN 978-0-306-46135-4. 
  19. ^ Song, Cai (2000). Fundamentals of Psychoneuroimmunology. John Wiley and Sons. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-471-98671-3. 
  20. ^ Rapaka, Rao S. (2008). Drug Addiction: From Basic Research to Therapy. Springer. p. 206. ISBN 0-387-76677-4. 
  21. ^ Abrahams, Marc (15 November 2004). "Heel thyself". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 December 2013. 
  22. ^ Komarova, Svetlana V. (2006). "A moat around castle walls". Medical Hypotheses 67 (4): 698–701. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2006.03.021. PMID 16690220. 
  23. ^ a b c Goldacre, Ben (11 September 2009). "Peer review is flawed but the best we've got". The Guardian (UK). 
  24. ^ Zarrintan, Sina (2008). "Ejaculation as a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males". Medical Hypotheses 71 (2): 308. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.010. PMID 18434036. 
  25. ^ Fakhree, Mohammad Amin Abolghassemi (2008). "Ejaculation as a treatment for nasal congestion in men is inconvenient, unreliable and potentially hazardous". Medical Hypotheses 71 (5): 809. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.022. PMID 18723292. 
  26. ^ Sawer, Patrick (28 February 2009). "Revealed: The secrets of belly button fluff". The Daily Telegraph (London). 
  27. ^ Abrahams, Marc (25 August 2009). "Gentlemen prefer blondes: fact?". UK: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-03-09. 
  28. ^ Charlton, Bruce G. (2008). "A book of ideas collected from Medical Hypotheses: Death can be cured by Roger Dobson". Medical Hypotheses 70 (5): 905–9. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.01.016. PMID 18280670. 
  29. ^ http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/david-horrobins-letter-handing-over.html
  30. ^ Stein, John (2004). "David Horrobin (1939–2003): A memoir". Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids 70 (4): 339–43. doi:10.1016/j.plefa.2004.01.001. PMID 15085824. 
  31. ^ a b Duesberg, Peter H.; Nicholson, Joshua M.; Rasnick, David; Fiala, Christian; Bauer, Henry H. (2009). "WITHDRAWN: HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS - A new perspective". Medical Hypotheses. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.024. PMID 19619953. 
  32. ^ AIDSTruth.org
  33. ^ Martin Enserink, Elsevier to Editor: Change Controversial Journal or Resign. Science, March 8, 2010
  34. ^ http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2010/05/rip-medical-hypotheses.html[full citation needed][self-published source?]
  35. ^ Richmond, C. (2003). "David Horrobin". BMJ 326 (7394): 885. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7394.885.