B – Vindication of the “editorial review” system for revolutionary science

Charlton BG. Medical Hypotheses 2006 impact factor rises to 1.3 – a
vindication of the “editorial review” system for revolutionary science.
Medical Hypotheses 2007;36:967-9. doi: 10.1016.j.mehy.2007.07.107

The journal’s impact factor has doubled since 2004, and it has now entered
the mainstream level of “respectable” medical jourals in terms of its
usage by other scientists, says its editor. The journal aims to publish
radical and speculative ideas; a healthy impact factor is important
because the journal uses a system of editorial review rather than peer
review. As editorial review relies on hard-to-quantify and non-transparent
individual judgments, it is important for its outcomes to be open to
objective evaluations, such as impact factors and downloads, to show the
journal’s usefulness in the dynamic process of science.

Posted for Margaret Cooter