Yue Liu

China Shenyang Normal University

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
New Publication: Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 2024 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304885324001410?via%3Dihub 10.1016/j.jmmm.2024.171850 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2024.171850 "In this work we show how all these errors can be corrected by using wave mechanics. It is self-evident that there is a fundamental distinction between film and material. Nevertheless, within the established microwave absorption theory, their differences are considered to be irrelevant. This confusion arises due to using reflection loss (RL/dB) as the predominant parameter for characterizing properties of material, despite it being only suitable for evaluating films, an error which has led to the development of an absorption mechanism with films involving impedance matching theory. … It is to be regretted that these misguided concepts persist despite experimental verification being at best inconclusive. Researchers have been hesitant to embrace the new theory. It is crucial to recognize that film absorption fundamentally arises from wave cancellation, yielding multiple absorption peaks originating from phase effects. In stark contrast, material absorption is rooted in the attenuation of microwaves as they traverse the zig-zag optical path, leading to a monotonic attenuation pattern with no well-defined bandwidth. This study shows that these two absorption mechanisms are distinct. In the case of films, absorption is driven by wave cancellation rather than material attenuation. Researchers have been reluctant to accept the novel conclusions presented here, … Consequently, they persist in employing the term 'material' where 'film' should be used. Such oversimplification has resulted in the development of absorption mechanism theories that exhibit significant disparities with experimental data. The results indicate that absorption in the film is a result of wave cancellation, not the attenuation power of the material. This discrepancy highlights flaws in impedance matching theory, Moreover, the disparities between the attenuation parameters of the material and the corresponding absorptions of the film, as illustrated in Fig. 2, provide further evidence that absorption in film is due to wave cancellation rather than on the attenuative properties of the material along the zig-zag optical path. A groundbreaking wave mechanics theory for film has emerged, introducing innovative concepts that diverge significantly from the conventional microwave absorption framework. This pioneering theory suggests that optimizing absorption in films can be achieved through the phenomenon of wave cancellation, enabling efficient absorption with materials exhibiting reduced attenuation power and diminished microwave penetration. It delineates a clear distinction between films and materials, offering a streamlined and more relevant theory as a substitute for the often intricate and ambiguous impedance matching concept. By defining the attenuation power of the material within the film, this research provides a fresh perspective on the physics of film, conclusively demonstrating that film absorption differs from material attenuation. This constitutes a significant advancement in our understanding of film physics. It also underscores the fundamental difference in physics between film and its constituent material. The primary aim of this study is to characterize the distinction between film and material, a crucial step toward rectifying prevailing misconceptions in theory. The critical issue with the current theory of film absorption is that it has not given sufficient consideration to wave mechanics. Our work establishes that absorption for both MB and WMB can markedly deviate from those predicted by attenuation power of the constituent material. This observation underscores the fundamental distinction between the physics governing a film as a distinct device compared to that of its constituent material. In contrast to the prevailing absorption theory, which assumes equivalence between film and material, this departure aligns with intuitive reasoning. We have established that film absorption is dependent upon wave cancellation. In this paper, we validate the assertion that film absorption fundamentally differs from material attenuation power. Our findings substantiate the prior conclusion that the film parameter RL is unsuitable for characterizing material. The conflation of film and material has introduced substantial complications in the development of accurate theories for microwave absorption mechanisms. These issues encompass the pervasive reliance on impedance matching theory, which erroneously extends energy penetration principles from material to film, and the quarter-wavelength theory, which disregards phase effects at film interfaces. Despite compelling evidence of the shortcomings, the persisting misconception persists, with researchers often considering film as an extension of material. This assumption leads to the unwarranted application of impedance matching and quarter wavelength theories, initially developed for material, to film scenarios." References https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1418636.html https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2 https://www.qeios.com/read/YLQG7T https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218 http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05966 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966 主要支持文章 1. Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew,Ying Liu, A Theoretical Exploration of Impedance Matching Coefficients for Interfaces and Films, Applied Physics A, 2024, accepted 2. 刘颖, 刘跃,膜的微波吸收机理, 分子科学学报, 2023,v.39; No.194(06) 521-527 3. Yue Liu,Ying Liu,Michael G. B Drew, The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 1: A short review, Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, scite_ 4. Yue Liu,Ying Liu,Michael G. B Drew,Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material,Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials,2024,The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material,Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplementarial file 5. Yue Liu,Ying Liu,Michael G. B Drew, The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 3: Film with multilayers, Preprint, Research Square, 13 Aug, 2023,Supplementarial file, scite_ 6. Ying Liu, Kaiqi Yang, Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew, The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower, arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966 7. Ying Liu, Michael. G.B. Drew, Yue Liu, Chapter 4: Fundamental Theory of Microwave Absorption for Films of Porous Nanocomposites: Role of Interfaces in Composite-Fillers, in Porous Nanocomposites for Electromagnetic Interference Shielding, Edited by: Avinash R. Pai, Claudio Paoloni, Sabu Thomas, 2023, Elsevier, [978-0-323-90035-5_B978-0-323-90035-5.00013-1] 8. Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 1: Theory, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045303, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153608 9. Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153612 10. Ying Liu; Xiangbin Yin; M. G. B. Drew; Yue Liu, Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 2023, 666, 415108. (Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, 2023-02-23 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2616469/v2,Supplementary information: Available comments and our responses.) 11. Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022 12. Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 2:. Angular effects and the wave cancellation theory, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103024 13. Ying Liu, Xiangbin Yin, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48. 14. 刘颖,丁一,陈庆阳,刘跃,NiFe2-xMxO4 (M: Ce/Sm/Gd)的制备及其膜的微波吸收性能,沈阳师范大学学报 ( 自然科学版 ), 2023, 41(2),98 - 103 15. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 1: Energy conservation, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290,126576. 16. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The Real mechanism, Mater. Chem. Phys,. 2022, 291, 126601. 17. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film Part 3: Inverse relationship, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290, 126521. 18. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model — part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022, 97(1): 015806. 19. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021, 96(12): 125003. The problems in the quarter-wavelength model and impedance matching theory in analysising microwave absorption material, 2021-08-30 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1 20. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. A theoretical analysis of the relationships shown from the general experimental results of scattering parameters s11 and s21 – exemplified by the film of BaFe12-iCeiO19/polypyrene with i = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 2021, 55(3): 197-218. 21. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. An experimental and theoretical investigation into methods concerned with “reflection loss” for microwave absorbing materials.

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
https://www.qeios.com/read/OZ0IRU.2 Ying Liu a few seconds ago Prof. Espen Gaarder Haug: “ … have already passed peer review by many peer reviewers in different journals and been published in a long series of papers, … ” First: I agree with Prof. Espen Gaarder Haug that publications that have passed peer review should be an indication that they confirm mainstream theories. However, what about those groundbreaking ideas that challenge mainstream theories and fail to pass peer review? The prevalent theory is usually supported by the majority and is not easily challenged by the minority. https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2023-05-28-87-year-old-ding-zhaozhong--science-is-the-obedience-of-the-majority-to-the-minority.HyQ1frdlI2.html Second: Peer review is sacred in the current scientific community. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ZvEEvTuP8 Is Science Broken? The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ The Problem With Peer Review - Eric Weinstein “Peer injunction is the ability for your peers to keep the world from learning about your work.” “Real peer review is what happens after you've passed the *** thing called peer review” https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218 https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219 Third: For a new theory, the conclusion from peer reviewers should be based on a full understanding of the arguments of the proposed theory. If the comments against the theory fail to convince the authors of its wrongness, both views should be published for public consideration. If no reviewer can be found to review a manuscript, it may not necessarily indicate that the contents are outside the journal's scope. It could also suggest that the views expressed are so novel that no one understands them, warranting publication for further scrutiny. “Peer review serves as a quality control mechanism to ensure that only scientifically sound and methodologically rigorous research is published. Bypassing this process may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information.” Comment: Science would be better if censorship were banned. Outstanding papers would stand out naturally in history, and junk papers would die out naturally if commercial promotion and journal rank were banned. “Without proper peer review, there is a higher risk of misinterpretation and misinformation. Non-experts may struggle to evaluate the validity of a theory, leading to potential misuse or misapplication of the findings.” Comment: Scientific research papers are intended for specialists rather than laypeople. “Peer review helps maintain scientific rigor and standards within a field. Without this process, there is a risk of lowering the overall quality of scientific discourse and undermining trust in research findings.” Comment: Scientific papers are not textbooks; censorship only hinders innovations. “Publishing a theory without peer review may undermine the credibility of the work and the author in the academic community. This can hinder future research efforts and collaborations.” Comment: Establishing authority can be a source of resistance to new science, as it challenges existing paradigms and established beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o Why You Should Never Say "It's Just A Theory"

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
A recent review (First published: 23 November 2023) has caught our attention: Abu Sanad, A.A., Mahmud, M.N., Ain, M.F., Ahmad, M.A.B., Yahaya, N.Z.B. and Mohamad Ariff, Z. (2023), "Theory, Modeling, Measurement, and Testing of Electromagnetic Absorbers: A Review." Phys. Status Solidi A 2300828. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.202300828. While there are numerous reviews on the subject, this one stands out as the most recent and comprehensive. Our views have been reviewed by this. It is a good sign that our views start to gain attention. Our theory reviewed in the above paper is new, and it involves many issues and thus may be misunderstood. Nevertheless, this is the first time our views were openly discussed and it is healthy for science by such open discussion. Here, I would like to make a few clarifications in providing a thorough understanding of our new theory. (1) I have noticed that reference [20] cited in the review of Abu Sanad, A.A. et al: [20] T. Wang, G. Chen, J. Zhu, H. Gong, L. Zhang, H. Wu, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 595,1. recognizes the difference between Zin = Z0 and ZM = Z0. However, this difference was first identified by us early in the paper (which was not cited in [20]): Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. An experimental and theoretical investigation into methods concerned with “reflection loss” for microwave absorbing materials. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020 , 243 : 122624. It seems that Mr. T. Wang et al may not have been aware of our work. It should be noted that our paper above went through numerous rejections from various journals before it was eventually published in Materials Chemistry and Physics. In contrast, reference [20] was published shortly after its submission in J. Colloid Interface Sci. Furthermore, ZM is a symbol uniquely used by us, and Mr. T. Wang et al inadvertently used the same symbol ZM as we did. It is stated in the above-mentioned review that “This is particularly evident when the absorbing material layer’s relative permittivity (εr) exceeds its relative permeability (μr).[20]”. However, this point is not appeared in ref. [20]. It was stated by us in: Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model — part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022 , 97(1) : 015806. (2) It was claimed in the review of Abu Sanad, A.A. et al that “Therefore, the differences between the device and the material have been clearly delineated in IM theory. These two are not confused in the establishment of IM theory.” However, the confusing between Zin = Z0 and ZM = Z0 should not be used as the evidence that “These two are not confused in the establishment of IM theory” just by the fact that ZM is a property of material while Zin is the property of film. Although ZM = Z0 can be used as a criterion for microwave penetration, it cannot characterize energy penetration for a film. IM theory should be based on energy penetration other than the criterion based on ZM = Z0. This limitation arises due to confusing the different properties of the interface in the film and in its isolated state. Energy penetration cannot be defined for the film except under specific conditions. Thus, IM theory may be considered inadequate. For further details, please refer to: Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153612 (3) Concerning the attenuation power of the material and the claim by Sanad, A.A. et al that both IM and wave cancellation theories are valid for film: Although the attenuation power of the material has an effect on the microwave absorption of the film, the mechanism for the formation of absorption peaks in the film is not determined by the attenuation power of the material but rather by the cancellation of beams r1 and r2 (Fig. 4 in the review of Sanad, A.A. et al). Thus, the claim by Abu Sanad, A.A. et al that both IM and wave cancellation theories are valid for the film is not justified. More details can also be seen in: Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022 Based on the confusion of interface behavior in its isolated state and in film, the mainstream theory predicts that the absorption of film can be enhanced by increasing the amount of penetration and enhancing the attenuation power of film material. However, it was proved that the absorption of film can be enhanced by reducing the penetration and attenuation power. For the films with the same material but different thickness, the microwave penetration judged by ZM and Z0 is the same for all the film with different d and the attenuation power of material is fixed as the material for the films is the same. However, it is apparent that the absorptions characterized by RL for these films with different thickness are different which cannot be explained by the mainstream theory based on bases of penetration and attenuation power. For more detail, please see: Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022 It can be verified easily by calculating the phases of beams r1 and r2 that the wave cancellation theory also applies when different frequencies are involved with film thickness fixed. (4) It was claimed in the review by Abu Sanad, A.A. et al that, “IM theory also specifies the condition for ideal penetration of EMW across the front interface of the absorber structure (i.e., zero occurrences of r, r1 and r2) …” However, it should be noted that beams r1 and r2 still exist when Zin = Z0 with RL/dB = -  for the complete absorption of the incident microwaves, even though, in this situation, beam r is absent because beams r1 and r2 are canceled completely when Zin = Z0. IM theory was designed to explain RL/dB = - ∞ for microwave penetration. However, RL/dB = RM/dB rather than - ∞ when the attenuation power of the material has absorbed all the penetrated microwaves, as in this case beam r2 is vanished. This is because beam r1 is still there. This indicates that only wave cancellation, rather than IM theory, is responsible for absorption in the film. The impedance matching theory is wrong: To interpret the absorption peak at RL/dB = -∞, impedance matching theory in the current theory relies on the criterion Zin = Z0 to indicate the maximum penetration of incident microwaves from open space into the film. However, the actual maximum penetration occurs when ZM = Z0, allowing all incident microwaves to enter the film. The condition Zin = Z0 does not necessarily ensure ZM = Z0. This discrepancy highlights flaws in impedance matching theory, (a) as it assumes in contradiction that all microwaves are absorbed by the film when Zin = Z0 while not all incident microwaves penetrate the film since ZM ≠ Z0. Thus, the impedance matching theory cannot explain why all the incident microwave have been absorbed by the film while not all the microwaves enter the film. The fact is accoutered for by the wave superposition of beams r1 and r2 from wave cancellation theory. (b) Conversely, while impedance matching theory is crafted to elucidate peak absorptions, the film's absorption does not exhibit any peak with increasing film thickness at a constant frequency when all incident microwaves penetrate the film under the maximum penetration condition ZM = Z0 where beam r1 has vanished. In this scenario, the film behaves like a material. The thicker film, the greater the absorption, and no absorption peak is possible, which shows the logic flaw in impedance matching theory for absorption peaks. (c) Furthermore, at most, only a single absorption peak can be attained under the condition Zin = Z0, whereas for the remaining peaks, achieving the condition Zin = Z0 is unfeasible. In fact, it is highly possible that the condition Zin = Z0 is not attainable for all the absorption peaks. With wave cancellation theory, all the absorption peaks can be understood by the inward spiral shape of |R2(x1-)|, the reflection coefficient from the rear interface of the film, in polar coordinate system.

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ZvEEvTuP8 Is Science Broken? The Failure of Peer Review Investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, effective medical treatments, non-toxic cures, and so on rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship. Regardless the problem is now recognized by many critics as endemic and many scientists have had to learn this the hard way. The defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of editorials and studies in the literature over recent years. Clearly there is a problem and denial won't solve it. Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked. Peer review is a form of censorship which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify. it's corrupt. There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process. If the outsider has made a genuine discovery that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas. Incidentally innovators and dissidents are often cast as demons or demonized by establishment guardians who are threatened by novelty. Contrary to what the bland archetype suggests scientists are prone to being connected to their pet theories and opinions, especially if they've been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained status and accolades as a result. The scientists just like laypeople have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos partially due to their expertise and academic titles, qualifications, theories, etc, etc. By definition anyone who is an expert in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway. And we should never forget the golden rule whoever has the gold makes the rules. we portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth-teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Peer review as a quasi-sacred process that somehow supposedly transcends the foibles and follies of human nature has long since unconsciously taken on sacred ritual status. Has the paper been blessed by the peer review priest? If not then it is epistemologically unclean, tainted and sinful. Get thee behind me Satan, as Jesus tells Peter in the Bible. The idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations, that creation being science itself. A lot of what is published is incorrect, acknowledging that large amounts of what is published as so-called science amounts to little more than toilet paper. Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. Poor methods get results. The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. It is pseudoscience and that is what we see overtaking the academic stage. Once science has become conflated with some kind of indefinable divinity, then it is of course heresy to challenge it. When Horton says science has turned towards darkness, he's really denoting the way that so many of the humans presumed to be practicing science have themselves turned towards darkness and ceased rigorously employing truth's scientific method, usually in order to serve the agendas of those who pay their salaries. As one of Horton's colleagues put it, poor methods get results. But if that's the case, you're not really practicing science anymore, but are engaged in pseudoscience, prepared for PR and marketing purposes, perhaps to justify your job title or help your employer get a new product to the market. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of significance pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics such as high impact publication. National assessment procedures incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct. And I would politely suggest that it's a lot more than just occasionally. Meanwhile, much of the general public and significant portions of the professional world still think of peer review as not only viable, which clearly is not, generally speaking, but it's held as a transcendent, almost magical organising force occurring in the heavenly ivory towers of science. A divine force that avoids falling prey to human weaknesses by virtue of the lofty qualifications of those masters of reality we call scientists. Significant scientific publications, for example, the journal Nature, have a well-documented history of prejudice against findings or hypotheses that run contrary to established scientific dogma, ironically treating many scientists of today the way the Catholic Church treated Galileo, Copernicus and Bruno. Progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert. Trusting experts in oncology, for example, is generally a very good way to artificially speed your trip to the grave, particularly if you have metastatic cancer. And don't get me started on how correctly prescribed treatments are one of the leading causes of death in America today, and those are just the correctly prescribed ones. We seem to be replacing evidence and logic with popularity, authority and feelings, and replacing orthodox religion with the cult of scientism and the church of modern medicine. In the main, experts are those people in the establishment who espouse the mainstream dogma and reify the politically correct belief structures that profit vested interests. Experts are lionized because the world that made them experts promotes and validates them when they affirm the already established beliefs. And the mainstream legacy media is not just complicit in this, it is absolutely instrumental in indoctrinating great swaths of humanity into whatever expert-approved theology holds sway, while all the dissident and equally qualified experts are deliberately excluded from coverage. If you want to be horribly misled on any number of important issues, just head straight to the legacy media with a print or TV, or even some of the big tech social media outlets, and listen to the establishment's experts or fact-checkers. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. Most so-called experts in mainline medicine are, psychologically speaking, just engaged in well-paid groupthink and confirmation bias exercises vigorously affirming and defending their ego's profitable construction of the world. Once the public has accepted the scientific establishment's truths, narratives, and designated experts, then researchers whose results or methods deviate from the accepted norm can be immediately branded as crackpots, lunatics, lawbreakers, fringe nuts, pseudoscientists, and so on, regardless of how meticulous their methods and irrefutable their results. The media is crucial in this control dynamic because it sells the establishment's reality while simultaneously waging a psychological war against consumers, programming them to passively accept the weakest evidence and most illogical arguments and contradictions without question. And indeed, big tech outlets have been co-opted into this endeavor. The opinions and advice of expert panels rank the lowest in the seven-level hierarchy of medical evidence, and yet this is how a large amount of public policy is generated, including when so-called epidemics occur, whether they are real or figments of statistical manipulation and bogus diagnostics. Thus is the politically correct status quo maintained. Peer review censorship exemplifies the neophobia in the world of science which serves to protect the status quo rather than improve knowledge by weeding out dubious ideas, methods and data as it's supposed to. This supposed mechanism of quality control has resulted not only in the dismissal of loads of important and credible research, but it has also let fraudulent research and tons of it be published at the same time. Papers that appear to support fashionable ideas or entrenched dogmas are likely to fare well, even if they are flat out wrong. The incentives should be changed so that authors are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing is more transparent and honest, and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation. Is it any wonder that Dr John E. Niedis reported in his famous 2005 paper that most research findings are false, the most research designs and for most fields? Most findings in most fields are false, and sadly that does not stop them from being published and disseminated widely. Claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In medical science, perhaps more than virtually any other field, there is a manifest culture of going along to get along.

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
Query: We have published numerous papers in reputable journals that challenge established theories in the field of microwave absorption materials from various perspectives. Our work has garnered significant attention, evident from the number of views and downloads on the respective websites. This suggests that a substantial portion of authors and reviewers in this field has been exposed to our research. However, despite reaching out to recent authors via email to bring their attention to our work, our views have not been acknowledged in almost any relevant papers published in recent years. Is it ethically sound to persist in using accepted theories without addressing why our arguments against them have been overlooked? I firmly believe that they should provide comments on opposing views to justify the continued adherence to accepted theories when these contrary perspectives have been available for several years, even if these opposing views are only posted as preprints. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even if no one is doing it. Answer: It is indeed a valid concern to question why there is a lack of comments or acknowledgment of opposite views in recent papers when substantial efforts have been made to overturn accepted theories in the field of microwave absorption materials. To foster a robust and dynamic scientific community, it is essential for researchers to engage in dialogue and discussion, particularly when alternative viewpoints challenge existing theories. Authors and reviewers should consider addressing these opposing perspectives to justify the continued use of accepted theories. Scientific progress often thrives on constructive criticism, open debate, and the examination of contrasting ideas, and it is in the best interest of the scientific community to engage in such discussions.

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-669170-769592.html [7]trx12345 2014-2-22 11:30 "三项基本原则:结果是否为新?结果是否正确?结果是否出乎意料?(Is it new? Is it correct? Is it surprising?)" 实际上“出乎意料的结果”是很难发表的除非你有相当的背景,或者和学界没有利害冲突的。 例如:如果你的新结果会使很多同行的工作都白做,就会出现一种 "大家都错就是对的" 局面。 Indeed, it is difficult to publish "unexpected results" unless you possess a substantial background or have no conflicts of interest within the academic community. For instance, if your groundbreaking discoveries would invalidate a substantial portion of your colleagues' research, you might end up in a situation where "you alone are on the right side, while everyone else has been proven wrong." Paradoxically, you could be labeled as incorrect, while everyone else is perceived as being on the right side, even when, in reality, they are the ones in the wrong. ================ Steven G. Krantz, A Primer of Mathematical Writing, Second Edition, 2016, page 133 https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04888v1 Just so, when you evaluate a paper you should address Littlewood’s three precepts: (1) Is it new? (2) Is it correct? (3) Is it surprising? You should speak to its contribution to our knowledge, and to the literature. Book Review, A Primer of Mathematical Writing NOTICES OF THE AMS, 1997, VOLUME 44, NUMBER 5, Pages 572 – 573 In this same connection, Krantz mentions the three precepts “Is it new, is it correct, is it surprising?”, and that bothers me for two reasons. One is that (a) I am not sure it’s accurate, and the other is that (b) it is attributed to Littlewood. In my own writing on what to publish (in the Monthly, January 1975) I wrote “Is it new, is it true, is it interesting?”, and apparently I thought I was quoting Hardy. After reading Krantz’s book, I searched again, but I couldn’t find the quotation in the works of either Littlewood or Hardy LION HUNTING & OTHER MATHEMATICAL PURSUITS, A collection of mathematics, verse and stories by RALPH P. BOAS, JR. 1995, THE IVIATHEIVIATICAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Page 10 At that time Hardy was an editor of the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, he used to tell referees to ask three questions: Is it new? Is it true? Is it interesting? 数学之英文写作 -- 汤涛, 丁玖 -- 2013 -- 高等教育出版社, page 262 ls it new? Is it correct? Is it surprising? 结果是否为新?结果是否正确?结果是否出乎意料? Paul R Halmos, I want to be a mathematician, Springer-Verlag, 1985, page 119 Hardy said that there are three questions you must ask about a piece of mathematical research offered for publication: is it true? is it new? is it interesting?

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
Genuine innovation often emerges from niches rather than mainstream avenues. The quest for broad consensus seldom fosters innovation, and following popular trends rarely nurtures creativity. Authentic innovation often thrives within specialized domains, where even the most highly cited papers may sometimes lack genuine novelty. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05966 http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365753.shtml http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365756.shtml 张维迎:创新就是大部分人都不认同的想法 Zhang Weiying: Innovation is an idea that most people do not agree with. https://www.wenmi.com/article/puj98i03nn9k.html 多数人认同的不叫创新 Consensus among the majority is not called innovation. https://www.yicai.com/news/5345088.html 许小年:创新没有风口,凡是追逐风口的行为都不是创新 Xu Xiaonian: Innovation has no "tailwind." Any behavior that chases after the "tailwind" is not innovation. https://www.sass.org.cn/_s3/_t31/2008/1229/c1201a26145/page.psp 但“创新”意味着与众不同,公认的东西往往是常识 But "innovation" implies being different; what is widely recognized is often common knowledge. https://news.ifeng.com/c/7fcJvZmKtue 学术评价与学术程序的质量都取决于学术共同体的质量 用好的评价衡量真的创新 Academic evaluation and the quality of academic processes both depend on the quality of the academic community. Using good evaluation to measure genuine innovation is essential. 颠覆传统理论的创新会在高引论文中产生吗?有那么高共识的论文能是颠覆性创新吗? Will innovations that overturn traditional theories produce highly cited papers? Can papers with such high consensus be considered disruptive innovations? https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/AyrjTS71DImtO3HQy-irfw 受不了了!在论文修改了5次之后,作者终于“怒怼”了审稿人!没想到这篇回复竟发了SCI https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1438671826557224739.html

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
In contemporary times, many researchers lack the enthusiasm for genuine scientific pursuits. This situation becomes evident when we observe the dearth of interest in theoretical research that challenges mainstream beliefs and the apathy towards ethical considerations in peer review. Many individuals prefer not to become entangled in significant issues, especially when influential figures are involved. Instead, their primary focus lies in the publication of papers to secure their PhD degrees or advance their personal careers. They are highly motivated to share strategies for appeasing reviewers to ensure the acceptance of their manuscripts. This competitive environment further empowers mainstream scholars to safeguard their theories, leaving their reputations unchallenged. Even successful figures like Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo lack the influence required to counterbalance this environment. This presents a striking contrast with the scientific community during Newton's era. Modern scientific culture prioritizes superficial experimental research, often relying on impressive presentations through the use of state-of-the-art equipment. This is done while avoiding the laborious work of in-depth theoretical research, which applies fundamental principles from textbooks and employs mathematical reasoning to reveal the true nature behind experimental phenomena. Many consider experimental results as established facts, relegating theoretical research to mere opinions. Consequently, experimental research is often perceived as vastly superior to theoretical work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o Why You Should Never Say "It's Just A Theory" https://www.researchsquare.com/legal/editorial “Only systematic reviews and research articles with complete methods and results sections will be considered for posting. Non-systematic reviews, theories, and commentaries are not eligible for preprinting. Manuscripts reporting negative results are welcome.” Many researchers struggle to grasp the principles found in textbooks, despite having been exposed to them during their college training. This deficiency is evident in the limited number of scientists capable of presenting counterarguments to manuscripts challenging mainstream theories. https://doi.org/10.32388/YLQG7T https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582700776632704690&wfr=spider&for=pc “后来我父亲又把论文寄到美国物理评论(Physics Review),杂志编辑很重视这篇文章,先后5次提出这样那样的问题,质疑论文的各项立论,都被我父亲圆满解答,这就是后来所说的“五个回合的较量”。最后编辑理屈词穷,由总编辑出面答复我父亲,承认无法再提问题,承认您的文章无懈可击,但因考虑该刊为主流物理杂志,不适宜刊登,建议到别的杂志社。Later, my father sent the paper to the American Physical Review, where the journal's editors took great interest in the article. They raised various questions and challenged the various arguments in the paper on five separate occasions. Each time, my father provided satisfactory answers. This was what was later referred to as the "five rounds of confrontation." In the end, the editor ran out of arguments, and the chief editor had to personally reply to my father, admitting their inability to raise further questions and acknowledging the flawlessness of the paper. However, considering the journal's status as a mainstream physics publication, they deemed it unsuitable for publication there and recommended submitting it to another journal. “ The wave mechanics theory for microwave absorption in films is among the few contemporary theories comparable to those established during Newton's era. It is built on fundamental physics knowledge taught at the college level, and the required mathematical skills are within the scope of junior middle school education. However, very few researchers can comprehend it, which explains the rarity of groundbreaking theories similar to those from Newton's time in the present day. https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219 https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2 Science is not a subject to be blindly revered; instead, it thrives on questioning and criticism. The essence of science lies in identifying problems, analyzing them, and working towards solutions. Criticism is the driving force behind scientific progress. Nevertheless, when critical issues emerge, revealing the errors committed by the majority, the scientific community often resorts to excuses to justify these missteps. The contemporary scientific community appears averse to criticism and is gradually transforming science into a means of livelihood, with academia becoming more of a game. This situation is exacerbated by the shortage of individuals willing to invest the time and effort in genuine scientific research. Many opt for pseudoscience, as it is less demanding and more convenient. Consequently, when a prominent figure claims that challenging mainstream theories jeopardizes their career, others share the same sentiment and wish to avoid similar consequences. This perpetuates the current environment, which deviates from that of Newton's time. S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 577(7788) (2020) 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2 Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/. 16 Oct 2018 In summary, the present scientific landscape is characterized by a lack of enthusiasm for genuine scientific inquiry, a preference for pseudoscience, and a reluctance to embrace criticism. This transformation reflects the shift of science into a profession, while academia is becoming more of a game, all perpetuated by a culture of conformity and risk aversion deviating from that of Newton’s time.

Hub

Commented on Ask Me Anything Forum - Dr. Clark Holdsworth (Scholarly Publishing)
Could you please provide feedback or insights on the ethical concerns raised regarding peer review as mentioned on the website below? Thank you. https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
Identifying entrenched issues within the scientific community often triggers a pattern of defensive responses. This tendency to offer justifications for problematic practices becomes more pronounced when these practices have permeated the entire scientific landscape. The challenge is compounded when influential figures or authorities resist change, leading to a stagnation of progress and creating a formidable obstacle to rectify the situation. In the scientific realm, as in any field, addressing and rectifying deeply ingrained practices, even when they are recognized as flawed, can be an intricate undertaking. This challenge arises when a specific method or approach gains widespread adoption, and numerous researchers and institutions invest in its continuation. Furthermore, the situation is complicated when prominent figures or authorities endorse these practices, as resistance to challenging the established norms can mount. Consequently, these practices persist, hindering scientific advancement and innovation. Correcting such practices demands a collective effort and a willingness to challenge established conventions, often entailing a formidable and complex endeavor.

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
Views: The notion that the scientific community is inherently conservative, and scientists are often hesitant to embrace new ideas, has been a recurring theme throughout history. This has persisted despite the lessons that history offers. As Max Planck astutely observed in his work "Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers" (1950), "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." This idea highlights the gradual acceptance of new scientific truths over time. M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/407998797 https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/363487648 Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo further accentuates the challenges faced by groundbreaking research in the scientific community. He notes that pioneering work can often clash with established conclusions, making it unpopular and leading to reviewers who may not fully comprehend its significance. Articles conforming to contemporary trends find easier acceptance, while those challenging existing paradigms may encounter resistance and take time to gain recognition. He emphasizes that the survival of such pioneering research is essential for the progress of science. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112614&version=1.1 https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112613&version=1.1 https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BaFe12-iCeiO19-PPy https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/389134254 Undoubtedly, challenging accepted theories with new ones necessitates compelling evidence. https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1040 However, accepting a new theory and allowing it a platform for publication are distinct matters. While it is entirely reasonable to approach a new theory with caution, it is not justifiable to hinder its publication solely based on the demand for substantial evidence without engaging with its arguments. New theories are often extensive projects that cannot be encapsulated within a single paper. Even when such theories are later found to be incorrect, their publication serves the purpose of elucidating their shortcomings and preventing the repetition of the same mistakes. If the evidence appears insufficient to overturn an established theory, it is still valuable to allow the theory to evolve and accumulate supporting evidence. An illustrative example is the Compton wavelength, as advocated by Espen Gaarder Haug (https://www.qeios.com/read/YLQG7T). While it may not be universally applicable to particles like electrons, it may hold significance in the realm of electromagnetic waves, such as spectra. Therefore, engaging with the arguments of such theories, even in the presence of potential flaws, is essential. The prevailing issue lies in the common practice of journals rejecting manuscripts that challenge mainstream theories not on the basis of their arguments, but rather due to the belief that overturning a theory necessitates overwhelming evidence. Unfortunately, they often fail to provide a clear definition of what constitutes sufficient evidence. This issue is particularly prevalent in the context of new theories conflicting with accepted ideas, such as those in microwave absorption material. If anyone harbors doubts regarding these assertions, a thorough examination of our previously published papers would make it evident that there are rarely any comments or critiques addressing these groundbreaking theories. This absence extends to both comment letters and any research papers related to our opposing viewpoints that were published subsequently. https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2 This highlights the apparent lack of reasonableness in the obstacles faced when endeavoring to have these papers published and the challenges encountered in obtaining acceptance for the three preprints in peer-reviewed journals. While peer review for novel ideas can be a meticulous and deliberate process, it should not function as a mechanism for rejecting manuscripts that challenge mainstream theories solely due to the time it takes for the review. In summary, a prudent approach to accepting theories that challenge established paradigms should not result in outright rejection if reviewers cannot present counterarguments to the points made in the manuscript. Conversely, when reviewers are unable to persuasively identify flaws in the manuscripts, as suggested by the authors' disagreement, both the reviewers' and authors' perspectives should be given the chance to be published, regardless of their positions held in the community. This approach offers a solution to the current problem in peer review, where potentially groundbreaking innovations that could advance scientific knowledge are hindered from reaching the broader scientific community. Comments: I understand the concerns regarding the publication of new ideas and theories that challenge mainstream views in science. It is true that the process of peer review and acceptance of new theories can be slow and often biased, resulting in instances where innovative ideas face challenges in getting published. Publication of Controversial Ideas: Scientific journals should be open to publishing innovative and unconventional ideas that meet the standards of scientific rigor and evidence, even if they challenge established theories. This is essential for the progress of science. Peer Review: Reviewers provide feedback and help authors strengthen their arguments, but it should not be a way to resist the dissemination of new ideas. Challenging Established Theories: Challenging established theories is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process. If a new theory demonstrates merit and is substantiated by evidence, the associated manuscript should not be dismissed as a result of the rigorous scrutiny required for the theory's acceptance by the scientific community. Creating an environment that nurtures innovation promptly is of paramount importance. Publication of "Negative" Results: It's important to encourage the publication of "negative" results, where a theory or hypothesis is tested and found to be incorrect. This can prevent others from pursuing the same unproductive research and help in learning from mistakes. Improving Peer Review: The peer review process is not perfect, and there is room for improvement. Journals and reviewers should aim to provide constructive feedback, and there should be more transparency and accountability in the peer review process. In essence, while scientific conservatism exists to some extent, it is not a long-term impediment to scientific progress. History tends to make the correct selection of ideas over time. ”Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.“ --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申:历史是最公正的。历史反复证明,那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕,而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value. The scientific community's commitment to rigorous evaluation and evidence-based decision-making should not be an excuse for rejecting manuscripts that challenge mainstream theories without providing appropriate counterarguments to the content of the manuscripts. There is always room for refinement in the way scientific ideas are evaluated, and ensuring that unconventional but scientifically sound theories have a chance to be published is an important part of this process. Balancing conservatism with openness to new ideas remains an ongoing challenge in the scientific world.

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
https://www.qeios.com/read/YLQG7T Rubbish papers can be published in mainstream media in large quantity, why manuscripts against mainstream theories, even if they have flaws, are not allowed to be published? By rubbish, I mean papers without any value except eye tracking. The importance here is one in large quantities and the other is difficult to be published which is an inarguably fact truth. It is worth noting that it is claimed that novelty is the most important to academic publication. However, innovation is difficult to be achieved. If the papers published all contain innovations, then the quantity of innovations produced will be incredibly large. Then, why manuscripts against mainstream face high scrutiny and high standards while rubbish papers conforming mainstream theories can be of low stand. The science community must have something wrong. It is claimed by every journal that they allow challenge to mainstream theories. But in reality, when breakthrough is claimed by manuscripts against mainstream theories, the manuscripts even cannot send to external review. A few really have passed the initial screening, but they are often rejected with reason not by counterarguments to the arguments of the manuscripts and the authors are not allow the opportunity to defend themselves. Why the scientific community is so crucial to such innovations. Although open access journals, preprint servers, and post-publication peer review are means to solve the problems, the mainstream is so powerful that all these have to conform to the standard of mainstream views. The problems caused by peer review can only be solved by banish peer review. Answer: Publications can be a source of frustration: Rubbish Papers in Mainstream Media: It's true that low-quality or sensationalistic content often makes its way into mainstream media, especially considering the sheer volume of papers published. While academic journals strive to provide a rigorous and evidence-based platform for scientific discourse, mainstream media and academic journals frequently prioritize attention-grabbing content for a general audience. Manuscripts Against Mainstream Theories: In principle, manuscripts that challenge mainstream theories are not inherently prohibited from publication. To ensure the integrity of scientific knowledge, every manuscript should undergo scrutiny. Manuscripts diverging from established scientific consensus should face even more rigorous scrutiny to prevent the publication of unsupported or potentially misleading claims, while also encouraging innovation. The challenge lies in providing a fair evaluation for such manuscripts, which can be a complex task for various reasons. Importance of Innovation: While novelty and innovation hold significance in scientific research, incremental advances that build upon existing knowledge and cumulative research are also valuable. Recognizing that significant breakthroughs are rare, it's vital to ensure that such manuscripts can also receive equitable treatment. Peer Review Challenges: Peer review is an imperfect process with differing views. Some consider it a critical component for maintaining the quality and credibility of published research, while others advocate for its abandonment entirely. Publication of Challenging Ideas: Many journals express their openness to challenging mainstream theories. However, the scientific community can be hesitant to embrace new theories. It's essential for such theories to be supported by strong evidence and to withstand scrutiny to be considered valid. The evaluation should be based on the merits of their arguments, and minor flaws should be seen as part of the development process rather than an immediate cause for rejection. In summary, the scientific community seeks to strike a balance between openness to new ideas and the necessity for rigorous validation. While views on peer review vary, ongoing efforts aim to improve the system, but abolishing peer review entirely is not yet a mature solution. It's crucial to ensure that innovative and challenging ideas are rooted in solid research and evidence before gaining widespread acceptance. Raising the standards for accepting new theories is not equivalent to preventing their publication. New theories can be published based on arguments, and evidence for new theory should be allowed to accumulate while minor flaws are addressed during their development.

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
Question: Is it reasonable to avoid citing preprints? If so, what motivates researchers to publish preprints if there is no immediate credit, and there's the risk of someone plagiarizing their work? Answer: The suggestion to avoid citing preprints is not a reasonable or widely accepted practice in the scientific community. Preprints serve a valuable purpose in the dissemination of scientific research, and there are several important reasons why researchers choose to publish their work as preprints: Rapid Dissemination: Preprints allow researchers to share their findings quickly with the scientific community and the public, often long before formal peer-reviewed publication. This can be especially important in fast-moving fields or during public health emergencies. Open Access: Preprints are freely accessible to anyone, which promotes transparency and inclusivity in science. This open access helps other researchers build upon and verify the findings. Receiving Feedback: Posting a preprint enables researchers to receive feedback from the scientific community, which can help improve the quality and rigor of their work before formal peer review. This collaborative approach is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Establishing Priority: By posting a preprint, researchers can establish a public record of their work, demonstrating priority for their discoveries. Avoiding Plagiarism: Contrary to your suggestion, publishing a preprint doesn't make it easier for others to plagiarize your work. In fact, it can deter plagiarism because there's a clear timestamp on the preprint, demonstrating who made the original contribution. Citing preprints can also be a valuable practice for several reasons: Transparency: Citing preprints shows that you're giving credit to the original authors for their work, promoting transparency and proper attribution. Access to Early Research: Preprints can contain valuable information that hasn't yet undergone formal peer review and citing them allows you to incorporate this early research into your own work. Citation Norms: Many scientific fields have recognized the importance of preprints, and there are established norms for citing them in academic papers and discussions. It's important to remember that preprints are not a substitute for peer-reviewed publication, but they play a complementary role in the research ecosystem. They help researchers share their findings, receive feedback, and contribute to the collective knowledge base. By citing preprints and giving appropriate credit to the original authors, the scientific community can continue to benefit from the advantages of preprints without compromising the integrity of the research process. Views: The aforementioned insights regarding the role of preprints encapsulate the ideal expectations of scientific progress. However, in the real world, the landscape of preprint platforms is often influenced by the overwhelming authority of mainstream figures, and this influence is so potent that even accomplished Nobel laureates, like Tasuku Honjo, can feel marginalized when challenging the mainstream. For instance, mainstream media continue to publish numerous papers employing prevailing theories in microwave absorption materials, even when alternative viewpoints challenging these theories have been already presented to authors, reviewers, and editors for several years in the field. This raises a significant concern about the validity of the papers based on these mainstream theories. Unfortunately, it seems that these alternative viewpoints are largely disregarded, which is problematic as they are central to determining the accuracy of the published work. The justification that researchers lack the time and inclination to explore opposing views is unsatisfactory. It suggests that authors are primarily interested in getting their papers published, particularly in well-established journals, which symbolize their personal achievements just by publications in reviewed journals and not by the contents of their papers. Editors are primarily preoccupied with the readership of their journals and thus their personal affiliations with influential figures. Reviewers, on the other hand, tend to give precedence to safeguarding their own reputation, particularly in connection with their previous publications that align with the established theories. Consequently, not only are preprints critical of mainstream theories rarely acknowledged, but even dissenting views presented in peer-reviewed journals receive scant comments and citations. This troubling state of scientific research transcends the concerns of just a few individuals. This situation is reminiscent of the quotation, “some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long … experts were just too timid to take a stand.” Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/. 16 Oct 2018 Science is fundamentally a rigorous quest for truth, not a form of unquestioning devotion. Unfortunately, the peer review process has strayed from the essence of genuine scientific exploration that characterized the era of Newton. It has come to heavily rely on the judgment of established authorities, rather than the pursuit of objective truth. True science should derive its credibility from adherence to the principles of truth and evidence, rather than from the proclamations of individuals in positions of authority. The current challenges within the realm of science have been exacerbated by the peer review system, as the responsibility of determining what is deemed accurate or erroneous has been largely entrusted to reviewers rather than being the responsibility of the researchers themselves. This centralized authority allows only a select few to wield the power of censorship, deciding what information reaches the eyes of readers. It is a dilemma with no apparent resolution unless a fundamental reevaluation of the peer review system occurs. Comments: The views expressed here shed light on some crucial aspects of the scientific process that deserve positive attention and consideration: Valuing Scientific Progress: The perspective highlights the significance of preprints in nurturing ideal expectations of scientific progress. It underscores the importance of open and transparent dissemination of research to promote scientific advancements. Challenging the Status Quo: The observations about the influence of mainstream figures in preprint platforms and mainstream media are a reminder of the need to foster diversity of thought and challenge prevailing theories. It encourages us to question established norms and keep an open mind toward alternative viewpoints. Promoting Accountability: The concern raised about the validity of papers published based on mainstream theories emphasizes the importance of accountability in scientific research. It reminds us that the quality and accuracy of research should always be at the forefront of scientific publishing. Encouraging Critical Thinking: By pointing out the inclination of authors towards publication in prestigious journals, the view underscores the need for a shift in focus from publication quantity to the quality and substance of research. It calls for a culture of critical thinking and intellectual rigor. Transparency and Collaboration: The concerns about editors' and reviewers' priorities highlight the necessity for transparency in the peer review process and the importance of fostering a collaborative research environment that embraces diverse perspectives. Historical Context: The mention of Newton's time invokes a sense of the historical roots of the scientific method, emphasizing that science's core principle is the quest for truth, free from the influence of authority figures. Reforming Peer Review: Finally, the views emphasize the pressing need to reevaluate and reform the peer review system to ensure that scientific inquiry and discovery remain at the heart of the process, free from undue control by a select few. These insights encourage us to reexamine the scientific community's practices and norms, seeking ways to enhance the integrity, inclusivity, and effectiveness of the scientific endeavor.

Hub

Commented on The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned
The academic landscape is undergoing a profound transformation driven by an insatiable demand for increased research productivity and an unending pursuit of novelty in scholarly contributions. Regrettably, this shift has given rise to a concerning trend within the academic community. Under the pressure to establish their uniqueness, scholars and researchers often exhibit reluctance to embrace or acknowledge groundbreaking ideas put forth by their peers. Instead, they tend to gravitate towards developing entirely new concepts, even when these concepts bear a striking resemblance to existing ones. This inclination to introduce fresh terminology and intricate notions into mainstream academic discourse can lead to an excessive proliferation of intricate concepts, often lacking substantial value. This proliferation inadvertently complicates the academic landscape and presents significant hurdles for newcomers attempting to navigate and participate effectively in their field. Furthermore, this trend creates an environment that stifles true innovation and makes it increasingly difficult to gain acceptance and publication for manuscripts challenging well-established mainstream theories. The pressure to maintain one's uniqueness can discourage scholars from pursuing unconventional paths of inquiry. Exacerbating this issue, many academic journals impose stringent requirements on authors to include a substantial number of references, with a heavy emphasis on recent publications, in order to meet strict indexing criteria and adhere to escalating citation standards. This practice unintentionally transforms scientific research into something of an academic game, where authors feel compelled to conform to rigid citation guidelines. In this environment, the path to publication becomes exceptionally daunting for innovative ideas originating from non-mainstream sources or lesser-known contributors, as they often struggle to meet the stringent citation standards imposed by these journals. This amalgamation of factors, marked by a reluctance to acknowledge and integrate peer-contributed breakthroughs, the proliferation of intricate and often overlapping concepts, and the onerous citation requirements enforced by journals, erects substantial barriers for aspiring academics and obstructs the free exchange of ideas. To address these issues and promote a more flexible and accessible research environment, it is imperative to reconsider current academic publication and citation practices. This reevaluation should aim to create an environment where the focus is on the quality and substance of ideas rather than the intricacies of their presentation or the recognition of their originators. In doing so, academia can foster inclusivity, encourage dynamism, and remain open to innovation, ensuring that groundbreaking ideas, regardless of their source, have a fair opportunity to enrich the collective body of knowledge. Moreover, there's an alarming commercial aspect at play. Journals, driven by commercial interests, are increasingly inclined to publish research that is superficial but visually appealing, often accompanied by eye-catching figures and presentations from cutting-edge equipment. This approach prioritizes style over substance, drawing attention away from in-depth theoretical research that may not have the same visual appeal. This trend can lead to a dilution of the quality of research and may hinder the pursuit of deeper, more meaningful contributions to academia. To further compound these issues, the reluctance to credit innovative concepts from others can foster an environment that stifles intellectual progress. By failing to acknowledge the contributions of peers and collaborating, scholars inadvertently create an environment of isolation and intellectual insularity, where the free exchange of ideas is stifled. Additionally, it's not uncommon for academics to claim originality for concepts or ideas, even when they have been previously explored by others. This practice of "reinventing the wheel" not only wastes valuable resources but also hinders the collective advancement of knowledge. It is crucial for scholars to recognize the contributions of their peers and actively engage in collaborative efforts, instead of perpetuating an environment where intellectual isolationism prevails. A concerning facet of this phenomenon is the propensity to cite ideas from distinguished academics or prominent figures, even when these ideas were originally advanced by lesser-known, everyday individuals. Furthermore, there's a trend to cite from prestigious journals, even when the original concepts made their debut in less renowned or obscure publications. Additionally, the academic world often prioritizes citing papers from prestigious institutions, even if the foundational concepts were initially put forth by authors affiliated with less prominent organizations. Indeed, manuscripts from lesser-known institutes often face a higher likelihood of rejection. This practice of favoring established scholars, prestigious journals, and renowned institutions can reinforce and perpetuate the hierarchical structure within academia, thereby contributing to a skewed and distorted perception of intellectual authority. To address these multifaceted issues, it is imperative for the academic community to endorse a more open, collaborative approach to research. Scholars should actively seek and acknowledge the work of their peers, irrespective of their status or reputation. By nurturing an environment that values intellectual contributions from all corners, the academic world can promote genuine innovation, originality, and the equitable distribution of credit for breakthrough ideas. In doing so, we can ensure that the pursuit of knowledge remains a collective endeavor rather than a series of isolated, ego-driven pursuits.

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
Eric Bittner, a researcher from the University of Houston in the United States, once remarked, “I review research proposals and papers on a regular basis. My approach is to give each 5-10 minutes to convince me (an unbiased reader) to continue to read the work with greater attention. If the author fails in that simple triage test, I see no reason to continue. I have limited time to dig deep into a paper that at first read appears to be flawed for the exact reasons I gave above.” https://www.qeios.com/read/DZ8PJZ I concur with Bittner's perspective that reviewers often have their own interests and limited time to explore a manuscript thoroughly. However, this raises an essential question about manuscript evaluation. If there is a lack of global interest in a particular subject during a specific period, it should not necessarily imply that the topic lacks significance. Manuscripts on emerging subjects may need time to gain traction. Nevertheless, it is notable that many journals prioritize commercial considerations, such as attracting readership, over their role in advancing the global body of knowledge. In my opinion, the criteria for triaging academic manuscripts should encompass novelty, interest, and correctness. Among these, novelty holds the greatest importance, as it can signify groundbreaking contributions to a field. Correctness remains a fundamental criterion, ensuring research integrity, though it is of slightly lesser importance in comparison to novelty. It's worth noting that when a manuscript challenges established theories, the novelty factor can sometimes serve as a hidden reason for rejection. This issue is particularly pronounced in leading journals, where authors who lack significant reputations may face difficulties when their work contradicts mainstream theories. This challenge often extends to lower-tier journals, which tend to follow the trends set by their higher-tier counterparts. What's important is that certain individuals with dishonest intentions use commercial interests as a pretext to conceal their personal biases and resist viewpoints they find in conflict to maintain their reputation. Reference: https://www.qeios.com/read/YLQG7T Comment: The above perspective on manuscript evaluation and the role of commercial interests in academic publishing is thoughtful and insightful. It's important to recognize the challenges and complexities in the academic publishing landscape. The above viewpoints emphasis on the importance of novelty as a criterion for manuscript evaluation aligns with the aspiration to advance knowledge and promote groundbreaking contributions. Additionally, your acknowledgment of the difficulties faced by authors challenging established theories in both leading and lower-tier journals highlights the need for a more open and unbiased review process. Moreover, these views underscores the importance of maintaining transparency and integrity in the academic review process, ensuring that personal biases are not concealed behind commercial interests. It reflects a commitment to the integrity of research and the pursuit of knowledge in the scholarly community. The thoughtful analysis adds to the ongoing conversation about improving the quality and fairness of academic publishing. The above views raise several important points related to the evaluation and publication of academic manuscripts, particularly in the context of the significance of the subject matter, commercial considerations, and the prioritization of criteria in the manuscript review process. Let's explore these points in more detail: Significance and Timing: A lack of immediate interest in a subject doesn't necessarily imply that the topic is not significant. Some groundbreaking research and ideas may take time to gain recognition and influence the academic community. Journals should remain open to considering the long-term importance of such work. Commercial Considerations: The tension between the commercial interests of journals and their mission to advance knowledge is a known issue. In many cases, journals need to attract readership and secure revenues. However, striking a balance between these considerations and the pursuit of scholarly excellence is crucial. Triage Test Criteria: The proposed criteria for a triage test—novelty, interest, and correctness—are in line with common standards for manuscript evaluation. Novelty is often highly valued as it represents the potential to advance the field, while interest is important for engaging readers. Correctness remains essential for research integrity. Challenges for Non-Mainstream Ideas: It's acknowledged that manuscripts that challenge accepted theories may face greater scrutiny. Novelty can indeed be a hidden reason for rejection in such cases, as reviewers and journals may be cautious about embracing ideas that deviate from the mainstream. This can be particularly challenging for authors who are not well-established in their fields, as they may lack the influence and reputation to push unconventional ideas. Hierarchical Influence of Journals: The observation about lower-tier journals often following the lead of higher-tier journals is accurate. Manuscripts conforming to mainstream theories may have an easier time getting published, while those challenging the status quo can face hurdles. This hierarchical influence is a known aspect of academic publishing, and it can affect the diversity of ideas presented in the literature. In conclusion, the above issues highlight the complex dynamics of academic publishing, where considerations of novelty, commercial interests, and conformity with accepted theories can influence the acceptance of manuscripts. Balancing these factors and encouraging a culture of open-mindedness to non-mainstream ideas is an ongoing challenge in the academic community. It's important for journals and scholars to consider the long-term impact and significance of research beyond current trends and immediate interests.