Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
scientific journal
The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) is a discontinued peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. It was established by Wallace Sampson (Stanford University) and Paul Kurtz (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and claimed to be "the only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to objectively analyzing the claims of 'alternative medicine.'"
The journal's website stated:The purpose of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine is to apply the best tools of science and reason to determine whether hypotheses are valid and treatments are effective. It will reject no claims because it fits, or fails to fit, some paradigm. It will simply seek justified answers to two questions: "Is it true?" and "Does this treatment work?"
A statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine," welcoming the founding of the journal, was signed by a long list of notable individuals, including five Nobel laureates. The statement expressed skepticism towards alternative medicine and the need for "objective, scientific critiques" of the field.
The journal was evaluated at least three times by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for indexing in MEDLINE, but rejected each time. In an editorial published on the journal's site, Sampson says that NLM director Donald Lindberg revealed that the first review of the journal had been performed by fourteen individuals or organizations who support alternative medicine. Sampson contends that, because the journal critically examines alternative medicine, such a panel of reviewers would not be able to objectively consider the journal. According to Sampson, the only information he received regarding the third review was that it was conducted by National Institutes of Health independent reviewers. Sampson states, "This was not what we had in mind when requesting outside review, as there was no assurance that the reviewers were either objective or authorities in pseudoscience."
The journal should not be confused with the Alternative Medicine Review (AMR), another peer-reviewed medical journal founded in 1996.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine” is scientific journal. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Scientific, Review and Alternative, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “scientific journal” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7433775. The first chronological checks are 1996.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine primary sources, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine archive and Scientific research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.