A few years ago, Bruce Charlton was fired as the editor of Medical Hypotheses for his principled refusal to withdraw a paper. The paper in question was by Peter Duesberg, the well-known HIV/AIDS skeptic and a molecular virologist at UC Berkeley. It started a firestorm of, well, not exactly criticism, but of calls for the head of whoever let the paper see the light of day, that head belonging to Bruce Charlton. The scientific publisher Elsevier listened respectfully to the baying wolves, and when Dr. Charlton would not bow to Elsevier’s demands, notably both withdrawing the paper and changing the format of Medical Hypotheses from one of editorial review to one of peer review, they sacked him.
Dr. Georg Steinhauser et many al.s have written a paper that touches on this controversy, Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. The abstract:
Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being “filtered out” or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.
This paper ironically had to go through peer review, and also ironically is being published by an Elsevier journal, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, having been rejected by several other journals and then subject to extensive editorial revision (something of course not uncommon to scientific papers).
Having written a fair amount on this topic at the time of l’affaire Medical Hypotheses, I was asked to place my name among the names of the authors, which I happily did, although I’m not responsible for any of its content. The other signers number something close to 200 I believe, and most of the other names I don’t recognize. However, a few of them I do, among them Seth Roberts and Michael A. Woodley.