A former member of the editorial board at Medical Hypotheses has started a similar publication called Hypotheses in the Life Sciences, following Elsevier's decision to institute a more traditional peer review process at the once editorially reviewed journal.

Image: flicker/meviola

This fall, Hypotheses in the Life Sciences will begin publishing papers that introduce new ideas in biology that "advance or challenge scientific thinking," according to a press release from the journal's publisher, the University of Buckingham Press. The papers will be chosen primarily with the guidance of the editorial board, which includes Medical Hypotheses's recently fired editor-in-chief Bruce Charlton, with occasional outside advice from the peer-review community for topics that are beyond the technical expertise of the board.

"We're trying to steer a middle course [between] completely autonomous editorial choice and a more conventional peer review system," said the journal's founding editor William Bains. "What a journal of this sort can provide is a certain amount of scientific quality control, but without attempting to be definitely authoritative and without some of the restrictions that come from conventional peer review."

Bains served on the editorial board at Medical Hypotheses, as well as editor-in-chief of a short-lived spinoff called Bioscience Hypotheses, which Elsevier discontinued in late 2009 due to financial reasons, Bains said. Now, Bains is recreating that outlet for life science researchers to voice new -- and potentially radical -- ideas about their work.

Medical Hypotheses came under fire when it decided to publish a controversial paper by AIDS denialist Peter Duesburg last summer. In response, its publisher, Elsevier, instituted a more traditional peer-review process, and terminated Charlton's contract.

Charlton lends his full support to the new venture, and hopes "to 'repay' [Bains] with the same kind of good advice and support that he used to provide for me when I edited Medical Hypotheses," Charlton told The Scientist in an email.


Related stories:

New editor for Medical Hypotheses
[24th June 2010]

Q&A: Medical Hypotheses 2.0
[19th May 2010]

Journal editor facing axe
[8th March 2010]

Radical journal gathers support
[ 26th February 2010]

Radical journal's fate at risk
[27th January 2010]