Talk:Medical Hypotheses

message: The authors of the first paragraph have a motivation of suppression of new ideas.  the journal is titled "Medical Hypotheses" not "Medical Facts".   Many of the "accepted" journals have published very sketchy data - have had papers retracted - have had too much influence of pharma or corporations in the data - yet they are considered "acceptable".
who is in charge of the first paragraph?  It should be rewritten.   Medical Hypotheses has a peer review process.  Peer reviewed articles accepted for publication are do not take away from the scientific community - they advance what we know and understand.  Should the title of the journal change to "Medical Facts" - then I would understand the confusion - yet as the title is, this journal should not be shunned because it is open source.Vegaproc (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: unfair write up of this journal

message: I passed this way and had a look and was surprised, disgusted would be more accurate, to see such an unbalanced biased article. In all seriousness it presents a very distorted view. It certainly does not present all points of view, in fact no other points of view. A few minutes on Google demonstrated that. I have no particular interest in the matter, except to see Wiki fairly represent the subject. For instance with such an emminent Editorial Board including nobel laureates does anyone seriously beleive that it publishes only fringe crank ideas and porn? Because that is the impression this Article currently gives. The article does not include in balance say any examples of ground breaking ideas first presented there, and why not?
The definition of hypotheses is a proposition proposed as an explanation for the occurance of some specified group of phenomina, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. To suggest that Medical Hypotheses publishes only the former is an insult to the intelligence of readers. Given many articles before expounding an hypotheses contain lengthy reviews of literature that in themselves are worthy of referencing.
Now as to the edit I recently made in some haste I admit, it might need some fine tuning, but 'synthesis' what synthesis? I attached references and links that support the statements so perhaps these are not understood? BRD discuss, and to aid this I moved my edit to this page;
Whilst criticised for lack of peer review, Medical Hypotheses instead uses editorial review, a process the US National Library of Medicine and Medline find acceptable for its peer review process for listing |title=MEDLINE® Journal Selection Fact Sheet |format= |work= |accessdate Medline and as a reliable source (medicine related articles) as suitable for citation on Wikipedia MEDRS The founder of the journal is said not to have beleived in peer review however this article by Prof Horrobin in the journal Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, in 2001 shows instead he called for change  Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process?  For 30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the fallibility of peer review and have been calling for much more openness and objective evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For the most part, the scientific establishment, its journals, and its grant-giving bodies have resisted such open evaluation. They fail to understand that if a process that is as central to the scientific endeavour as peer review has no validated experimental base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is not surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the agenda and the conclusions of science. Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there is a great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give confidence but is open to many criticisms. 
 last = Horrobin
 | first = David  
  | coauthors = 
  | title = Something Rotten at the Core of Science
  | Journal = Trends in Pharmacological Science, Vol 22, No 2, Feb 2001
  | location = 
  | pages = 
  | language = 
  | publisher = 
  | date = Feb 2001  
  | url = http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev4.htm
He particularily critized the lack of transparency in the peer review process, so on Medical Hypotheses editorial panel reviewers are not anonymous and the author gets to make any changes before acceptance as 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.  
Medical hypotheses is a member of the Elsevier stable of journals |title=Elsevier Editorial SystemTM |format= |work= |accessdate=}} and authors are subject to the same processes. authors instructions
 
Peerev (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, we should consider that the good Dr. Pauling might be a good example that being a Nobel Prize winner doesn't mean you aren't batshit crazy. Mote (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that comment relevant to the article at hand? I've found a source that says that James W. Black, another Nobel Prize winner, was on the Medical Hypotheses editorial board but I'm looking for a definitive source. I may go through some old back issues to cite that.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance needed

message: I have to say, I'm not a big fan of the :Category:Pseudoscience tag. I appreciate that the journal was called a purveyor of pseudoscience as part of the reaction to the AIDS-denialist pieces, and that deserves mention in the article. But the category is lacking in context and nuance (as all categories are), and I think we should use it more carefully. In reading the article, one can immediately see who labeled the journal as pseudoscientific, why they did so, and in what context. That's as it should be. The category, on the other hand, is sort of a monolithic proclamation, and I think we're better off leaving it out and handling the nuance in the article. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 23:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to go with that. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me too. The more I think of this, the problem seems to be that the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science ruling deals more with topics than with persons or journals. There should be a further development of the concepts developed in that ruling. Some really good thinking occurred there with some good rulings. Part of it was incorporated into the NPOV policy until a few weeks ago. Now it's located in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience guideline. That would be the place to further develop that content so as to enable the use of the category for people, journals, organizations, societies, etc.. Right now we're in a limbo where there are definitely such like which deserve the category, but we're not really adequately prepared to use it. When it applies to people there are also BLP concerns, so it should probably be reserved for most members of the "Dead Quacks Society".  Note that categories are navigational aids and that placement in :Category:Pseudoscience doesn't mean the article subject necessarily IS pseudoscience. Wikipedia doesn't judge such matters, but it does recognize when V & RS do. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience category 

message: I am Bruce G Charlton, the now-sacked editor of Medical Hypotheses, so thought I should probably round this story out by mentioned the date I was sacked and main reasons given by Elsevier, with some references. 
There are many deliberate errors and significant omissions on this Wiki page, but it is perhaps not appropriate for me to be the one to correct them, other than to note this page's systematic unreliability and inaccuracy. 
I see that keepcalmandcarryon (who Has Been relentlessly vandalizing David Horrobin's Wiki page for several months) is also active here. 
With devout activists continuously at work to propogate their perspective, it seems that the days of Wiki being broadly reliable have now gone - and I can only suggest that serious readers who want to know about this subject go to the primary sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.3 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added your position on this by citing your blog entry. That section had a pretty spaghetti narrative, so I've copy-edited it as well. I don't think I've spotted any overt inaccuracies though. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor was sacked May 11 2010 - note from the ex-editor 

message: I see they've appointed the editor that previously ran the other journal of David Horrobin, Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids. Did Manku turn that journal around or was it still shilling evening primrose oil? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Editor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medical Hypotheses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312091113/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html
*Added  tag to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/new-medical-hypotheses-editor-pr.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312091113/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Wikipedia says:
Impact factor = 1.322[1] (2018).
Is it good or bad? Or somewhere between?
A lot of covid papers are now published in Medical Hypotheses, but are any of them really interesting enough to mention at Wikipedia?
More reliable than preprint papers?
Are there any cases when a really good idea was published at Medical Hypothesis and 1 years later confirmed in papers like Medical Facts?
--ee1518 (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact factor. Covid papers