 |
|
| MEDICAL HYPOTHESES
| |
| | |
|
|
Editor-in-Chief:
Bruce G. Charlton
See editorial board for all editors information
Description
Medical Hypothesesis a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. It will publish interesting and important
theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives.
Horrobin
Prize for 2007 awarded
Aims & Scope
Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach
to review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical
Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review
can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical
Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his
role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.
From Charlton
BG. Peer usage versus peer review BMJ 2007; 335: 451 :- "Traditionally, editorial review is the main alternative to peer review. A scientist
editor or editorial team applies a sieve, with varying degrees of selectivity, to research submissions. Strictly, this process should
not attempt to predict whether ideas and facts are "true," because truth can be established only in retrospect. Instead, editorial selection
works within constraints of subject matter on the basis of factors such as potential importance and interest, clarity and appropriateness
of expression, and broad criteria of scientific plausibility. Even probably untrue papers may be judged worth publishing if they contain
aspects (ideas, perspectives, data) that are potentially stimulating to the development of future science.
Papers in Medical
Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge
between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are
to be critiqued and tested against observations.
Bioscience Hypotheses
Please note that papers that deal with fundamental
aspects of the life sciences, even if these have medical implications, should be submitted to our sister journal, Bioscience Hypotheses.
Please click here to go to the
Bioscience
Hypotheses homepage
Abstracting/indexing
Medical Hypotheses is indexed and abstracted in: Science
Citation Index, Index Medicus/Medline, Adonis, BIOSIS, Chemical Abstracts, Elsevier BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences,
Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, Current Contents/Life Sciences, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Medical Documentation Service, Reference
Update, Research Alert, SciSearch, UMI (Microfilm), Russian Academy of Science
Bibliographic & ordering information
ISSN: 0306-9877
Imprint: ELSEVIER
Subscriptions for the year 2008,
Volumes 70-71,
12 issues
Institutional online access: ScienceDirect eSelect
For purchase of online access to this journal on ScienceDirect.
Institutional price: Order form
USD 1,745 for all countries except Europe, Japan and Iran
JPY 212,000 for Japan
EUR 1,962 for European countries and Iran
Personal price: Order form
EUR 264 for European countries and Iran
USD 234 for all countries except Europe, Japan and Iran
JPY 28,600 for Japan
Personal price UK: Order form
GBP 184
Conditions of sale & ordering procedures, and links to our regional sales offices.
For an overview of recently-dispatched issues, see the Journal issue
dispatch dates
Impact factor of this journal
2007: 1.276
© Journal Citation Reports 2008, published by Thomson Reuters
063/631
Last update: 23 Jul 2008
|
|
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
