• Bruce G Charlton.
• Med. Hypotheses. 2007 Jan 1;69(5):967-9.

AbstractThe Thomson Scientific Impact Factor (IF) for Medical Hypotheses has risen to 1.299 for 2006. This means that the IF has more than doubled since 2004, when it stood at 0.607. Using Elsevier's Scopus database; in 2004 there were 437 citations to Medical Hypotheses papers published in the previous two years--by 2006 this had trebled to 1216 citations. Monthly internet usage of Medical Hypotheses run at an average of about 26000 papers downloaded per month. An IF of 1.3 means that Medical Hypotheses has now entered the mainstream level of 'respectable' medical journals, in terms of its usage by other scientists. This is particularly pleasing given the aim of the journal is to publish radical and speculative ideas. A healthy IF is important to Medical Hypotheses because the journal deploys a system of editorial review, rather than peer review, for evaluation and selection of papers. Editorial review involves selection of a journal's content primarily by an editor who has broad experience and competence in the field, assisted by a relatively small editorial advisory board. The great advantage of editorial review is that it is able, by policy, to favour the publication of revolutionary science. But since editorial review relies on hard-to-quantify and non-transparent individual judgments, it is important for its outcomes to be open to objective evaluations. Scientometric measures of usage such as citations, impact factors and downloads constitute objective evidence concerning a journal's usefulness. Since Medical Hypotheses is performing adequately by such criteria, this provides a powerful answer to those who fetishize peer review and regard any other system of evaluation as suspect. Journal review procedures are merely a means to the end, and the end is a journal that serves a useful function in the dynamic process of science. Medical Hypotheses can now claim to perform such a role.

11 keywords...

hide…