Talk:Medical Hypotheses

unfair write up of this journal

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)

Balance needed

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)

Excellent commentary Peerev. This excuse for a wiki article is a fine example of the deceit that Big Pharma and its so-called quackbusters get up to in order to prevent the truth getting out. Peerve2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.190.158 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is quite biased in that it focuses attention on three unfortunate articles while mentioning none of the interesting research that has run in Medical Hypotheses over the course of 35 years. I'm beginning to restore order to the article, including listing the founding advisory board which includes many notable scientists (including Linus Pauling). Have there been any other Nobel Prize winners to sit on its board besides Pauling and the current Nobelist board member, Arvid Carlsson?--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would like to add that I have been watching the Medical Hypotheses debate and this article for awhile now and I believe the newer versions are much more fair and balanced than previous versions. Keystroke (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

SIDS and other issues

I would like some additional discussion about the edits by Gloriamarie (talk · contribs). The general thrust is to make the article a bit more positive toward the journal, which may be reasonable overall. Perhaps the current tone is a bit too negative, although it does reflect the tone found in a number of reliable, independent third-party sources.

I have a couple of specific concerns about the edits by Gloriamarie (talk · contribs).

• This is a clearly inappropriate use of {{citation needed}}. The reference added in the same edit amply documents Horrobin's controversial status.
• I'm not opposed to mentioning areas where Medical Hypotheses really has been ahead of the curve, but the SIDS material is deeply, deeply concerning to me. Gloriamarie (talk · contribs) inserted: "A 1987 paper which theorized whether bacterial toxins cause sudden infant death syndrome is now the leading theory for causes of SIDS." That raised my eyebrows, since bacterial toxins are certainly not the "leading theory for the causes of SIDS". The reference provided is a Lancet editorial (PMID 18514712) describing a study which found evidence of bacterial infection in some cases of SIDS. The editorialist wrote: "The authors stress that association does not mean causation." The study authors themselves wrote: "At present, there is no unifying theory for the pathogenesis of unexplained SUDI." (PMID 18514728). Gloriamarie goes from those statements to the claim that bacterial infection is "the leading theory for the causes of SIDS".

That tells me that either we're not actually reading the sources we're citing, or we're actively misrepresenting them. I'll assume the former, but let's take it a bit more slowly and discuss these edits. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Independent article says that Horrobin "generated controversy" with one of his actions. I have not been familiar with Horrobon previous to today, so I did not feel myself qualified to independently assert on Wikipedia that a person is controversial simply based on one article I read which says he generated controversy at one point in his life. After looking at his own Wikipedia entry and some of the edits after my edit, though, I think this description could be appropriate, although it is still up for question whether it is neutral to include it as one of only a few descriptors in an encyclopedia entry that is not his own biography. I will not revert your removal of the tag, but I would like another source which specifically states that he is controversial. I'm sure this could be done through a simple Google search. I wasn't logged in to my journal account to read the BMJ article-- does it specifically state that Horrobin was controversial? It's not a BLP issue but it's just a statement that should certainly be cited and should be easily if a person is notably controversial enough to describe them as such given one adjective to do so. Feel free to word the SIDS sentence differently. The article completely lacked any sense of balance prior to today as noted by others on this talk page, and my goal is a neutral article. --Gloriamarie (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• A reliable source indicating that someone "generated controversy" seems to me enough to describe that person as "controversial"; if you look at the article on Horrobin, you'll see a additional sources attesting to his controversiality. Since this is not a biography of David Horrobin, it seems off-topic and inapt to devote a bunch of references to "proving" the fact that he was a controversial figure; one good source should be sufficient.
• I'm not going to word the SIDS sentence differently right now, because you're halfway to violating the three-revert rule already and I don't want to play into the edit-warring dynamic that's developing. Your reinsertion is still incorrect. I quoted from the sources you cite; it would probably go a long way if you would be willing to look at those sources and craft a more accurate description of the state of knowledge on SIDS. If not, I'll come back to it, but I don't want to be part of the edit-warring that seems in danger of developing.

If the article seems imbalanced, then the solution is to look at independent, reliable sources. If they support the tone of the article, we need to reflect their conclusions. If they take a more positive view than our article, then we should be able to cite them to improve our coverage. I do not think that inserting repetitive citations and lengthy quotes from self-selected letters of support published by the journal itself is part of a neutral, encyclopedic article, nor is it a good way to "balance" a concern over negative tone. MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"A reliable source indicating that someone "generated controversy" seems to me enough to describe that person as "controversial'". I'm a cautious editor and stay with what sources say. It's not a neutral word. "if you look at the article on Horrobin, you'll see a additional sources attesting to his controversiality." - Repeating what I stated in my comment above, that's just what I did which tells me that it's probably all right to refer to him as controversial. To me, it's not an issue so I'm not sure why you are getting upset over the insertion of one citation tag which you subsequently took out and I have not put back in. I have not engaged in "edit warring" and if anything that has been the atmosphere you have generated by removing entire cited sections due to a few words you object to. I will take out the SIDS sentence as it's very minor anyway. If quoting scientists who do not support the closure of the journal is not balanced to you, then the random "snake oil salesman" quote from the founder's obituary as well as pretty much the entire controversy section should be taken out as well. Both sides are better represented than they were in the previous incarnation of the article. -- Gloriamarie (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that MastCell's actions have been well-justified. The statement, "Many Medical Hypotheses articles have received widespread dissemination and discussion for positing interesting theories or ideas", cites as its support an entry on a Medical Hypotheses blog, composed of letters from authors of the journal itself. This source is clearly conflicted. Gloriamarie's insertion is somewhat repetitious (e.g. Burnet mentioned twice) and tangential in listing many members of the editorial board, who are not material to this discussion since they have no formal role in the editorial process. The frequent use of peacock terms further degrades these edits. Clearly, the role of bacterial toxins in SIDS is dubious, certainly not one of the leading theories. It is somewhat difficult to follow the diff, but I don't see much that is worth retaining and am inclined to revert the whole thing, then let more focused, higher-quality edits be vetted individually. -- Scray (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can show Web of Science results which respond to the "many" articles being disseminated, and the assertions are not from one person on a blog but from a page on the blog which quotes letters from scientists. I find it hard to believe that it is not relevant to the article who served on the initial editorial board. Burnet is mentioned twice as he served on the board and published in the first issue. --Gloriamarie (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the relevant Lancet commentary, along with a couple recent reviews of SIDS and specifically of the bacterial hypothesis. Not one of the papers referenced the 1987 Medical Hypotheses article at all. While it might be possible to say, "there have been a few instances where a hypothesis offered in Medical Hypotheses later found a bit of experimental support", that is so far from your claim as to raise suspicion of intellectual dishonesty or a very poor understanding of the difference between speculation and real research. Please dont replace the sentence. Thanks alteripse (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why then not just remove the sentence rather than revert my entire edit? None of these actions make any sense. One mistake in looking at a source does not equate to "intellectual dishonesty." This is taking it a bit too far -WP:Cooperation--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When someone does many different changes, some good, and some not, it sometimes makes more sense to revert and ask the person to introduce the changes one at a time. Sorry if this seems dismissive or unappreciative of your efforts; on MastCell's behalf I plead a surfeit of the quackery pushers here who seem determined to push their agenda by any means, honest or dishonest. I tried to look at what MastCell reverted, assuming it was largely what you put in. Much of it looked unobjectionable, and some a real improvement. But you poison the good stuff when you make a false claim. Why not redo a paragraph at a time? You will probably persuade us that much of it is an improvement. alteripse (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To reset the conversation a bit, I understand it can be frustrating to have a large edit reverted because of a quarrel with one subpart of it. I apologize for generating that frustration. I think we're mostly on the same page at this point about the SIDS stuff? That was sort of my major concern, both because it made the bacterial hypothesis sound more dominant than it actually is, and because it credited Medical Hypotheses with "breaking" the hypothesis when the journal doesn't seem to be cited by any of the hypothesis' current proponents.

I'm completely convinced that there's no ill intent on any side here, and that this is mostly a misunderstanding (on the SIDS stuff) coupled with some good-faith disagreements about the general thrust of the article. For my part in escalating it to anything more than that, I apologize. To be clear, I do think that we should mention and cite the supportive letters received by the journal. I just don't think that we should give them undue weight, because as Scray notes, they are not independent of the subject and we should prioritize independent sources. But we can discuss that further. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Charlton's personal blog is not a reliable source, especially not for the opinions of other individuals. I have removed this source per WP:RS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mention of the supportive letters should be made with reference to the reliable, third-party sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Elsevier and the editor

According to a news piece in Science, Elsevier is asking that the journal's editor either raise the standards of review or resign. (I personally found it curious that the editor of a major medical journal was "agnostic" as to whether HIV causes AIDS, but that's just me). In any case, the Science piece suggests that a fight is brewing between the journal's publisher (embarrassed by the some of the journal's editorial choices) and the journal's editor (who believes that the publisher has no right to question his editorial decisions). Probably worthy of mention in our article. MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting article. I happen to be in favor of letting Medical Hypotheses continue to be an unrefereed journal of speculation; I have picked it up a few times over the years in medical libraries. Ironically, the strongest argument against doing so is the fairly continual misrepresentation of the journal by the quacks and frauds who want to pretend it is a journal of research, evidence, or mainstream opinion, rather than what it is: a place to publish speculation. IF the quack supporters did not try to misrepresent the nature of the papers and the journal, it would have been far less likely to have attracted adverse attention. I was assuming our friend Gloria was aware that she was misrepresenting the type of paper this journal publishes and the influence, but she says not. I have assumed most of the fraud supporters around here were well aware they were lying, but perhaps a higher proportion than I thought are simply ignorant of how different this journal is from those that report research. Our article needs to make that clear. alteripse (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This story is really developing:

• Elsevier to Editor: Change Controversial Journal or Resign March 8, 2010

• May Deadline Set for Controversial Journal's Editor April 1, 2010

• Exclusive: AIDS Scientist Investigated for Misconduct After Complaint April 16, 2010

I note that there is some confusion in the article, with the title of one article being linked to another article. I'll let someone else fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you tell us which link you're talking about, it makes it easier for another editor to fix it (and why didn't you do it yourself)? :-) BTW, I remove the "pseudoscience" category because I think that just goes a bit far. --Crusio (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with removal of pseudoscience tag. We should make it clear that this is an honest journal of speculation. The reputation for pseudoscience is undeserved and completely a result of the ubiquitous misrepresentation by quacks and their supporters that Med Hyp is a journal of research or validated scientific opinion. alteripse (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• See Medical_Hypotheses#Article_controversy:

• A group of 20 HIV scientists and advocates contacted the National Library of Medicine to request that the journal be removed from the MEDLINE database alleging that the journal lacked scientific rigor and had become a "tool for the legitimization of at least one pseudoscientific movement [AIDS denialism]." Economist Nicoli Nattrass argued in an article in AIDS and Behavior that "Medical Hypotheses has long been "a source of concern in the scientific community" because of a "disturbing track record of publishing pseudo-science."

• Those allegations happen to be true. It's not just because of its misuse by quacks, but its own long track record of publishing all kinds of pseudoscience without the necessary disclaimer that would free it from editorial responsibility for making such false claims. This latest debacle is just one example. It's quite a mixture of good and bad. That doesn't mean that most of the writers stand behind such pseudoscientific views, but that the journal itself has low standards and its editor lacks the critical thinking skills needed to distinguish fact from fiction. If you don't think that its frequent dissemination of pseudoscientific garbage is enough to qualify placing it in the category, okay. I'm not going to push it. Based on Shermer's definition of pseudoscience, I do think that its frequent presentation of false ideas using scientific claims based on botched research methodology that violates the scientific method would qualify for the journal being described as a pseudoscientific journal. If it didn't superficially appear make explicit claims to being a vehicle for scientific thought, but instead claimed to be a journal for the exploration of metaphysical and theological ideas, it wouldn't qualify. If it does have the necessary disclaimer somewhere, please point me to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• It claims only to be a journal for scientific speculation and ideas, not metaphysical or theological, and not scientific research, truth about the material universe, or mainstream scientific opinion. It feels peculiar that someone thinks I am advocating for the devil, but no educated person can peruse an issue of that journal without quickly realizing that most of what is published in it is out there so far it will never be anything but someone's fantasy. But the journal itself and its editor do not claim it is peer reviewed science. I believe in honest labeling and save my contempt for the con men who want to reference it as if it is science-- and we have had plenty of those bozos here. And let's save the pseudoscience label for any editor who wants to reference this journal as if it were peer reviewed research. alteripse (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've modified my statement above. Doc, maybe we're talking past each other, and I definitely don't think you're advocating for the devil. I'm not talking so much about my personal beliefs about the journal (even though I mention them), I'm referring to the sourced statement. There are too many editors here and plenty of quacks and conmen who like to misuse the journal for selling their pseudoscience. We agree on that. There are also quite a few scientists who believe that its seemingly misunderstood status needs to be knocked down a notch to avoid confusing people. That's what the source seems to be saying. If it really has a "disturbing track record of publishing pseudo-science", and it does, then it would be proper to categorize it as a vehicle often used for the propagation of pseudoscience since the authors of those articles believe them and present them as truth. What I think you fail to recognize (and the reason other scientists are so concerned) is that when a reasonable physician like yourself reads it, you can see through the nonsense, but unfortunately there are plenty of other physicians and scientists who don't possess your critical thinking skills and are fooled. They give its articles more credit than they deserve. I'm certainly not going to push this, but that's my opinion. If there is any journal that deserves the category (per the definition and my description above), this is certainly one (along with the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research if it existed here). -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do not think the current intro adequately conveys the distinction between research reports and speculation. Would you support the following as a clearer intro?

Medical Hypotheses is a medical journal published by Elsevier, originally founded to provide a forum for unconventional ideas and speculation about diseases and treatments not yet supported by substantial research evidence or mainstream opinion. The journal's website invites submission of "radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed", and "interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives."[1] Because the papers are simply hypotheses and ideas outside of mainstream opinion, submitted essays are not sent to other scientists for review, but are chosen instead by the journal's editor-in-chief based on his estimation of their potential interest and importance. Medical Hypotheses is the only Elsevier journal not to practice peer review: it places full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of factual assertions on the authors.[2][3]

In the years since it was established, few of the journal's articles have had a perceptible influence on medical research or treatment (impact factor only 1.4). Citations to its articles are sometimes misused as evidence of research or opinion support for ideas and practices rejected by the scientific community. In recent years, the journal's editor has drawn criticism for publishing articles containing false assertions of fact or misrepresentations of evidence.

alteripse (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the pseudoscience category. Whether or not the publisher and the editor consider its contents to be "science" is, in my opinion, irrelevant. There is a common perception of Medical Hypotheses as a peer-reviewed journal, and it is often cited as such (by the aforementioned con men and others). Many articles in the journal are pseudoscientific in nature. The "out there" ideas are presented in some cases as the result of "empirical research". If Medical Hypotheses does not qualify for the category, I'm not sure what would. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

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)

I'm willing to go with that. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Editor was sacked May 11 2010 - note from the ex-editor

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)

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)

References

New Editor

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)

External links modified (January 2018)

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Impact factor. Covid papers

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)