Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science

Georg Steinhauser*, Wolfram Adlassnig, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Serena Anderlini, Petros Arguriou, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, William Bains, Clark Baker, Martin Barnes, Jonathan Barnett, Michael Baumgartner, Thomas Baumgartner, Charles A. Bendall, Yvonne S. Bender, Max Bichler, Teresa Biermann, Ronaldo Bini, Eduardo Blanco, John Bleau, Anthony BrinkDarin Brown, Christopher Burghuber, Roy Calne, Brian Carter, Cesar Castano, Peter Celec, Maria Eugenia Celis, Nicky Clarke, David Cockrell, David Collins, Brian Coogan, Jennifer Craig, Cal Crilly, David Crowe, Antonei B. Csoka, Chaza Darwich, Topiciprin Del Kebos, Michele DeRinaldi, Bongani Dlamini, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Dwyer, Fabienne Eder, Raul Ehrichs De Palma, Dean Esmay, Catherine Evans Ro Tt, Christopher Exley, Robin Falkov, Celia Ingrid Farber, William Fearn, Nicholas J.G. Pearce

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20 Citations (SciVal)


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 peerreview 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)359-376
Number of pages18
JournalTheoretical Medicine and Bioethics
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2012


  • Academic freedom
  • David F. Horrobin
  • Editorial policy
  • Innovation
  • Peer review
  • Periodicals astopic
  • Scientific hypotheses


Dive into the research topics of 'Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this