Bioscience Hypotheses

A new journal from Elsevier

Bioscience Hypotheses is a forum for innovative, stimulating ideas in the life sciences. We publish papers that provide genuinely new insight into how biology works or how biological knowledge could be applied, to provide the basis for debate and innovation.

Bioscience Hypotheses will publish new, challenging and radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Contemporary publication practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas, and can oblige authors to distort their views to satisfy referees. Bioscience Hypotheses therefore selects papers by editorial review rather than peer review. The editor's role is as a 'chooser' of the best ideas to publish, not a 'changer'.. The Editor often uses external referees to inform his opinion on a paper, but their role is as an information source, and the Editor's choice is final. Bioscience Hypotheses can therefore form 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. This also means that we encourage authors to take responsibility for their ideas. We do not state that papers are 'true', only that they are interesting.

However authors should be aware that a paper is not an idea: it is an expression of an idea. On occasions the Editor will discuss (sometimes at length) with authors aspects of the paper that the Editor feels are unconvincing, not clearly expressed, are likely to meet with specific opposing arguments from the readers, or are contradicted by other information available in the literature. The purpose of this is to explain why a paper is not suitable in its present form for publication. This is a critical part of the approach of the Journal, as new ideas are often hard to accept, and arguments need to be well made for them to convince.

Progress in the life sciences is often as much due to innovations in technology as to new understanding of biological processes. Bioscience Hypotheses is therefore also open to papers that describe new ways to understand or exploit biological systems, providing that they meet our criteria of novelty, clarity and importance.

Bioscience Hypotheses is edited by Dr. William Bains, associate faculty at the Institute of Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, and Chief Scientific Office of Opal Drug Discovery. For a short CV, please click here. For William's own web pages, please click here.

Bioscience Hypotheses is very grateful to be supported by an excellent Editorial Board:

  • Bruce Charlton, University of Newcastle, UK
  • Camilo Colaco, Immunobiology Ltd, UK
  • Aubrey de Grey, Methuselah Foundation, USA
  • Jack Cohen, University of Warwick, UK
  • David Fell, Brookes University, Oxford, UK
  • Tim Freegarde, University of Southampton, UK
  • John Martin, University College London, UK