Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science

摘要: Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. limits enormous unstructured influx information and sheer amount dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer offers benefit eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially experimental sciences. However, we believe not always appropriate evaluation controversial hypothetical We argue process can be prone to bias towards ideas affirm prior convictions reviewers against innovation radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable being "filtered out" made accord with conventional wisdom by process. Consequently, having introduced review, Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may unable continue tradition as allowing discussion improbable unconventional Hence conclude asking publisher consider re-introducing system editorial Hypotheses.