My friend, coauthor and former colleague Paul Frijters was today complaining that the inherent conservatism of economics journals means that boring papers have a higher chance of getting published than innovative ones. So perhaps we need an economicsÂ journal like this:
Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, 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. The editor sees his role as a ‘chooser’, not a ‘changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted.
Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.
Update: Paul suggests we just rip off the name, and call it Economic Hypotheses.