Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News
  • Published:

Editor says no to peer review for controversial journal

Nature (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

Move demanded by publisher would 'utterly destroy' Medical Hypotheses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Horrobin, D. Med. Hypoth. 1, 1-2 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Richmond, C. Br. Med. J. 326, 885 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Duesberg, P. H. et al. Med. Hypoth. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.024 (2009).

  4. Ruggiero, M. et al. Med. Hypoth. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.06.002 (2009).

Download references

Authors
  1. Daniel Cressey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

Related external links

Letter from HIV researchers to NLM

Letters in support of Charlton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cressey, D. Editor says no to peer review for controversial journal. Nature (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.132

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.132

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing