Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Nov 25;34(45):e300.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e300.

Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications

Affiliations
Review

Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications

Armen Yuri Gasparyan et al. J Korean Med Sci. .

Abstract

Scientific hypotheses are essential for progress in rapidly developing academic disciplines. Proposing new ideas and hypotheses require thorough analyses of evidence-based data and predictions of the implications. One of the main concerns relates to the ethical implications of the generated hypotheses. The authors may need to outline potential benefits and limitations of their suggestions and target widely visible publication outlets to ignite discussion by experts and start testing the hypotheses. Not many publication outlets are currently welcoming hypotheses and unconventional ideas that may open gates to criticism and conservative remarks. A few scholarly journals guide the authors on how to structure hypotheses. Reflecting on general and specific issues around the subject matter is often recommended for drafting a well-structured hypothesis article. An analysis of influential hypotheses, presented in this article, particularly Strachan's hygiene hypothesis with global implications in the field of immunology and allergy, points to the need for properly interpreting and testing new suggestions. Envisaging the ethical implications of the hypotheses should be considered both by authors and journal editors during the writing and publishing process.

Keywords: Bibliographic Databases; Hypothesis; Impact; Peer Review; Research Ethics; Writing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Number of Scopus-indexed items citing Strachan's hygiene hypothesis in 1992–2019 (as of August 28, 2019).

Comment in

References

    1. O'Shea P. Future medicine shaped by an interdisciplinary new biology. Lancet. 2012;379(9825):1544–1550. - PubMed
    1. Kolahi J, Khazaei S, Iranmanesh P, Soltani P. Analysis of highly tweeted dental journals and articles: a science mapping approach. Br Dent J. 2019;226(9):673–678. - PubMed
    1. Heidary F, Gharebaghi R. Surgical innovation, a niche and a need. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2012;1(4):65–66. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bains W. Hypotheses, limits, models and life. Life (Basel) 2014;5(1):1–3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bains W. Hypotheses and humility: Ideas do not have to be right to be useful. Biosci Hypotheses. 2009;2(1):1–2.