Hypnotic and posthypnotic suggestions are frequently and successfully implemented in behavioral, neurocognitive, and clinical investigations and interventions. Despite abundant reports about the effectiveness of suggestions in altering behavior, perception, cognition, and subjective sense of agency (SoA), there is no consensus about the neurocognitive mechanisms driving these changes. The present review starts with procedural descriptions of hypnosis, suggestions, and suggestibility, followed by a systematic and comparative review of prominent theories of hypnosis, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, based on their power to explain existing observations in the domain of hypnosis. Thereafter, we propose a novel theory of hypnosis, accounting for empirical evidence and synthesizing concepts from hypnosis and neurocognitive theories. The proposed simulation-adaption theory of hypnosis (SATH) is founded on three elements: cognitive-simulation, top-down sensory-adaptation, and mental training. SATH mechanistically explains different hypnotic phenomena, such as alterations in the SoA, positive and negative hallucinations, motor suggestions, and effects of suggestions on executive functions and memory. Finally, based on SATH and its postulated neurocognitive mechanisms, a procedure-oriented definition of hypnosis is proposed.

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.

No abstract