Publishing hypotheses used to be the norm in the past. The first Watson and Crick paper was little more than a hypothesis (The first sentence of that paper was: "We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)."). So was the Corey-Pauling alpha-helix paper. "one-gene, one-enzyme" paper by Beadle and Tatum was a hypothesis. The first DNA coding paper by Gamow was a hypothesis. Although not formally published, Crick's famed tRNA paper, which introduced the "wobble-hypothesis" for the third anticodon position, which allowed deciphering of the genetic code, was a hypothesis, was widely circulated among the practitioners. The central dogma paper by Crick was a hypothesis. The so-called French-flag model of morphogen gradient in developmental biology was a hypothesis by Lewis Wolpert. Crick wrote a paper in Nature in early 1970s on the probable physical size limit of morphogens, which was entirely a hypothesis (no morphogen was yet identified). The proposal that eukaryotic chromosome ends must have a special structure (specifically, a hair-pin, which some 15 years later was discovered as telomeres) was a hypothesis advanced by Jim Watson in the late 1960s in Nature. The famous Bohr's paper on atomic theory was strictly speaking a hypothesis (consistent with past data), the general theory of relativity was a hypothesis (proved a few years later by observing the bending of light past the sun during a complete solar eclipse). Schroedinger's equation paper was a hypothesis (it can't be derived). Plank's famous paper that introduced quantization of energy was a hypothesis. I could go on and on. In recent times, journal editors and reviewers have generally and unintentionally conspired together to not publish hypothesis without validation, because of impact factor considerations--a hypothesis without validation is hard to evaluate, and so it is risky for a journal to publish because it might be proved wrong and then the article would not be cited further. For example, in the early-to-mid seventies, there was a paper published in Nature entitled "A quantum mechanical muscle model" (or something very close to that language), which proposed that actin and myosin molecules generate force through a quantum mechanical resonance process, which turned out to be untestable (not incorrect, mind you), and was hardly cited (the untimely death by suicide of the author due to depression might have contributed to the paper not much cited, however). Unfortunately, as Carl Popper has shown, hypotheses that are proven wrong are the most useful hypotheses for the progress of science. So the current trend arguably might impede progress.

Not sure that I understand the question. Are you asking if there are journals that only publish a hypothesis without data? Or are you asking if you need a hypothesis to publish your data?

In some global or systems based approaches, you don't actually need to start with a hypothesis. You can simply globally profile two different conditions and globally quantitate the differences in protein expression or something else. I guess the hypothesis could be "this treatment is going to cause a change to this sample" but you don't have to theorise on what the change might be before conducting the experiment.

I suppose that most research is conducted on the basis of an hypothesis. The research then either verifies or falsifies this working hypothesis. Publishing hypothesis without having evaluated this hypothesis in detail or without further data, however, can only make sense as a point of view or for discussion within other experts in the field of research.

I agree with Matthew Padula. It is important to have a research question. Research does not always have to be hypothesis-based. Journals consider those papers which are relevant to the journal's subject area and also good quality papers with enough experimental or other support answering the research question being studied.

As Matthew Padula noted, it's not exactly clear what you're asking. Most journals accept only research manuscripts. If you have a hypothesis (or more than one) that you would like to have published, that would generally be difficult unless it's a new and significant interpretation of or speculation on existing data. If the data is your own, then the hypothesis would appropriately be included in the introduction to the paper describing that data rather than published stand-alone. If you feel that you do have a good idea based on an existing body of data, it may be publishable in 'Hypothesis (http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/).

Publishing hypotheses used to be the norm in the past. The first Watson and Crick paper was little more than a hypothesis (The first sentence of that paper was: "We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)."). So was the Corey-Pauling alpha-helix paper. "one-gene, one-enzyme" paper by Beadle and Tatum was a hypothesis. The first DNA coding paper by Gamow was a hypothesis. Although not formally published, Crick's famed tRNA paper, which introduced the "wobble-hypothesis" for the third anticodon position, which allowed deciphering of the genetic code, was a hypothesis, was widely circulated among the practitioners. The central dogma paper by Crick was a hypothesis. The so-called French-flag model of morphogen gradient in developmental biology was a hypothesis by Lewis Wolpert. Crick wrote a paper in Nature in early 1970s on the probable physical size limit of morphogens, which was entirely a hypothesis (no morphogen was yet identified). The proposal that eukaryotic chromosome ends must have a special structure (specifically, a hair-pin, which some 15 years later was discovered as telomeres) was a hypothesis advanced by Jim Watson in the late 1960s in Nature. The famous Bohr's paper on atomic theory was strictly speaking a hypothesis (consistent with past data), the general theory of relativity was a hypothesis (proved a few years later by observing the bending of light past the sun during a complete solar eclipse). Schroedinger's equation paper was a hypothesis (it can't be derived). Plank's famous paper that introduced quantization of energy was a hypothesis. I could go on and on. In recent times, journal editors and reviewers have generally and unintentionally conspired together to not publish hypothesis without validation, because of impact factor considerations--a hypothesis without validation is hard to evaluate, and so it is risky for a journal to publish because it might be proved wrong and then the article would not be cited further. For example, in the early-to-mid seventies, there was a paper published in Nature entitled "A quantum mechanical muscle model" (or something very close to that language), which proposed that actin and myosin molecules generate force through a quantum mechanical resonance process, which turned out to be untestable (not incorrect, mind you), and was hardly cited (the untimely death by suicide of the author due to depression might have contributed to the paper not much cited, however). Unfortunately, as Carl Popper has shown, hypotheses that are proven wrong are the most useful hypotheses for the progress of science. So the current trend arguably might impede progress.

Earlier there was provision of giving hypothesis but now as we are in advance age of science and technology now its more easy to discover any thing. So,scientist publish their research papers.Journals use to publish those papers which have good experimental support.

Shadma Khan: " ...as we are in advance age of science and technology..."--this is a rather misleading idea. There is no end to science, and a hundred years later we will look back on today as a scientifically and technologically primitive age compared to 2113. It is erroneous to believe that it is any "easier" or "harder" to discover anything today versus in the past or in the future. We are all creatures of our age, and we are limited in our vision and abilities by our time. What we can or cannot publish today is a result of our culture, and not a result of the intrinsic difficulties of doing science.

Animesh's first answer is fascinating and brings forth an interesting question. Aside from theoretical physics and math, can you actually still publish the type of almost speculative ideas that the papers you list have? As you point out, the majority of journals won't publish something unless it is likely to generate numerous citations and thus improve their ranking. I guess that magazines like The Scientist exist to fill such a gap and scientific blogs could hold the same purpose, but I doubt they would be given the same "respect" as high ranking peer reviewed journals.

Would Watson and Crick's paper get published today with the data that was in it?

You mean the journal "Medical Hypotheses"? I think that most of us (I am a journal editor and former professor) think that it is very nice to have a place to put raw ideas for discussion if you want to do that, but don't consider a paper spinning out a hypothesis to be equivalent to a more substantial publication, with data. Anyone can spin out a hypothesis and even pull together bits and pieces of data to support it. It is getting data to falsify the hypothesis that is difficult, and that is why it is so important in doing science to structure studies with the intention of disproving a hypothesis, not to support it. (Even if you think that it is true.) The journal has a low impact and is not taken seriously by many people. The journal has also been very controversial at times because of some questionable papers it has accepted.

On their information for authors page they state "Medical Hypotheses was therefore launched, and still exists today, to give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals." In the hands of persons with the background and knowledge to vet the ideas presented therein -- this type of journal can serve its purpose. Remember -- the idea that the earth was round was once also thought-of as radical.

Hi Animesh,

I fully agree with you, and, to your list, I can add "evolution by natural selection" and "adaptive immunity by clonal selection". There is no science without falsifying theories, and current papers are, at best, papers in agreement with their own hypothesis. But I doubt that the disappearance of theoretical papers is related to the impact factor craziness, since the trend began before bureaucracy paralyzed science.

Worth reading:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982297700952