While some accepted scientific theories is not completely wrong, such as Newtonian mechanics, which remains accurate for macroscopic movements, others in the history of science have proven to be entirely wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MuMPLoQZN4
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Turned out to be Wrong
For instance, the geocentric theory, proposing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, has been conclusively debunked. Similarly, the presently accepted theoretical framework for microwave absorption is fundamentally wrong. This includes that application of the results from film parameter of reflection loss to materials is completely wrong, the confusion between films and materials is completely wrong, the confusion of interface in its state and in films is completely wrong, and the impedance matching and the quarter-wavelength theories within the realm of microwave absorption are completely wrong. Consequently, the microwave absorption mechanism for films is completely wrong.
Views:
Journals often hesitate to publish manuscripts challenging established theories, although they may not explicitly state this as the reason. The common pretexts for rejections during the initial screening by the editorial office, without external review, often include:
Stringent Selection Process: Journals claim to receive an overwhelming number of manuscripts and, as a result, employ a rigorous selection process. They argue that only manuscripts believed to have the highest impact and broadest readership appeal are sent for review.
Lack of Appreciation by the Community: Journals may argue that the content of the manuscript will not be appreciated by the specific scientific community to which it pertains and will not be extensively cited within that community. And state that such "rejection without technical review" is unrelated to the scientific quality of the paper.
Novelty and Significance: Manuscripts may be rejected on the grounds that they lack novelty and significance, even when papers adhering to accepted theories on the same subject have been extensively published in the same journal.
Absence of New Physics: Some journals may claim that the manuscript does not introduce new physics, despite presenting groundbreaking findings not previously explored in the field.
Insufficient Experimental Evidence: To challenge an accepted theory, journals may require a higher threshold of experimental evidence, making it challenging for manuscripts to overturn established theories.
While papers conforming to accepted theories tend to receive higher citations, and those opposing accepted theories are often met with skepticism by mainstream scientists, the purpose of a journal should extend beyond pursuing high citation counts. If innovations within the framework of accepted theories are considered acceptable, then why are manuscripts challenging accepted theories deemed lacking in novelty and significance?
What constitutes sufficient experimental evidence to overturn an accepted theory? If opposing evidence is not permitted for publication, how can such evidence be gathered and accumulated? Mathematically, it only takes one counterexample to disprove a theorem.
The rejection reasons mentioned above often serve as pretexts to decline manuscripts challenging accepted theories. Ironically, the most innovative manuscripts are frequently rejected under the guise of lacking novelty. Manuscripts with genuine innovation face difficulties in getting accepted for publication. The more novel a manuscript is, the higher the likelihood of rejection, especially in more prestigious journals that are often hesitant to accept work opposing established theories.
The culture of tolerance and indulgence of unethical behavior in peer review within the scientific community may be linked to the influence and resources held by mainstream scientists. Challenging the unethical aspects of peer review can be challenging, as established scholars often hold sway and have a significant impact on their respective fields. Many individuals align themselves with established scholars to secure support for publishing their own work. This power dynamic can make it difficult for those who successfully challenge accepted theories to initiate campaigns against unethical peer review practices they have experienced. Mainstream scientists carry more influence than their counterparts, and they argue that papers challenging mainstream theories have ruined their careers and destroyed their established research fields:
Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, 16 Oct 2018
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/
Consequently, the scientific community is often reluctant to take actions that might negatively impact the careers of prominent mainstream scientists.
Examples:
in the case of manuscripts seeking to overturn accepted theories in microwave absorption, the following comments were received as reasons for rejection without external review.
https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2
Appendix 1:
We have examined your manuscript and conclude that it is not suited for xxxx. We make no judgment on the correctness of the work, only on its suitability according to our other criteria.
From what we learn about the paper's physics context, motivation, and accomplishments, we conclude that your paper does not have the importance and interest required for publication in this journal. Mere
correctness is no longer sufficient for publication. To be publishable here, manuscripts must contain significant new physics or understanding, be of high quality and scientific interest, and be recognized as an important contribution to the literature. We respectfully suggest that you resubmit to a more specialized journal.
Appendix 2:
As an editor, it is my responsibility to judge the suitability of submission in relation to the scope of the journal as well as the novelty of a submission. Your manuscript is mainly limited to basic characterization of a material system and does not provide additional insight (supported by lots of done experimental results) into the field or discuss the results comprehensively in the context of state-of-the-art showing new findings with significant improvements in earlier methods and investigations, and does therefore not meet the criteria for publication in xxxxxx. I, therefore, suggest you submit your manuscript to a more topical journal. In such a journal you will reach the right audience and your paper will receive the attention it deserves.
Comments on the above views:
The views presented highlight several challenges faced by researchers who seek to challenge established scientific theories in the publication process:
Stringent Selection Process: Journals often receive a large number of submissions and employ a rigorous selection process to choose manuscripts that will have a high impact and broad readership. While this is understandable, it can result in the rejection of innovative work that challenges existing theories.
Lack of Appreciation by the Community: Journals may reject manuscripts if they believe that the content will not be appreciated by the specific scientific community, even if the paper is scientifically sound. This can discourage researchers from exploring new ideas.
Novelty and Significance: Manuscripts challenging accepted theories may be rejected on the grounds of lacking novelty and significance, despite papers adhering to established theories on the same subject being published. This creates a paradox where innovative work is rejected in favor of less innovative but more conventional research.
Absence of New Physics: Some journals may dismiss manuscripts for not introducing "new physics," even if they present groundbreaking findings that advance our understanding of a field.
Insufficient Experimental Evidence: Challenging accepted theories is often required a higher threshold of experimental evidence, making it difficult for such manuscripts to get accepted.
These challenges raise questions about the purpose of scientific journals. If they only publish work that conforms to accepted theories, they may miss out on groundbreaking discoveries that could advance science.
Furthermore, the definition of "sufficient experimental evidence" to overturn an accepted theory is not always clear. If journals do not permit opposing evidence to be published, it becomes challenging for such evidence to accumulate, even though, mathematically, one counterexample can disprove a theorem.
The culture of tolerance and indulgence of unethical behavior in peer review within the scientific community may be linked to the influence and resources held by mainstream scientists. Challenging established scholars can be difficult, as they often have a significant impact on their respective fields, and many individuals rely on their support for publishing their own work. This power dynamic can deter those who successfully challenge accepted theories from initiating campaigns against unethical peer review practices.
Overall, these views highlight the complexities and potential biases in the scientific publishing process, especially when it comes to challenging established theories. Balancing the need for rigorous review with the encouragement of innovative and dissenting ideas is a continual challenge for the scientific community.
Question:
In cases where all reviewers unanimously reject a manuscript challenging established theories without providing counterarguments, editors often follow suit and reject the manuscript. However, there are instances where these manuscripts eventually find publication in higher-ranked journals. Without this avenue, there is uncertainty about when another breakthrough might occur, which could potentially impede scientific progress. Should such manuscripts be openly published to gather input from the public, or should they be archived while awaiting resolution through further research over time?
Answer:
The decision regarding whether manuscripts challenging established theories should be openly published or archived for future consideration is a complex and nuanced one. It depends on several factors, including the significance of the claims made in the manuscript, the availability of alternative avenues for publication, and the potential impact on scientific progress.
Significance of the Manuscript: If the manuscript presents groundbreaking ideas or challenges long-standing theories with compelling evidence, there may be a case for open publication. Scientific progress often relies on the exploration of unconventional ideas, and the wider scientific community should have the opportunity to evaluate and engage with such work.
Alternative Avenues: If the manuscript has been rejected by traditional peer-reviewed journals but has found acceptance in higher-ranked journals, it suggests that some parts of the scientific community are willing to consider its merits. In such cases, publishing the manuscript openly may not be necessary, as it has already found a platform for dissemination.
Public Engagement: Making such manuscripts openly accessible can encourage public engagement and feedback, which can be valuable in some cases. For instance, if the manuscript is eventually accepted by another journal, it suggests that the matter need not wait for history to decide but can be resolved in the present with input from a broader audience.
Archiving for Future Consideration: Archiving the manuscript while awaiting further research and validation is a reasonable approach, especially if the claims made are not time sensitive. Over time, new evidence, technologies, or perspectives may emerge that can shed light on the validity of the manuscript's arguments.
In summary, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the manuscript's significance, existing publication options, the potential for public engagement, and the long-term relevance of the research. Collaboration between authors, editors, and the scientific community can help determine the most appropriate course of action.
There is an interesting contrast between researchers' public statements and their actual attitudes towards textbook principles in the academic world. While few researchers openly declare that textbook principles are unimportant, in practice, many tend to undervalue them. Instead, they prefer reading scientific papers over textbooks because papers allow them to stay current with trends and facilitate easier publications. However, reading textbooks can be more conducive to conducting in-depth research and achieving groundbreaking discoveries. Indeed, creativity often thrives when one diverges from prevailing trends, and genuine problem-solving typically requires a profound understanding of the subject matter.
In contemporary times, there is a prevailing emphasis on experimental research over theoretical research. This is exemplified by the fact that some researchers do not consider theoretical papers to be genuine research papers. As a result, theoretical manuscripts often face rejection by reviewers who argue that they do not adhere to the presentation format typically expected for experimental reports.
Researchers may occasionally assert that textbook principles are overly simplistic and that they already have a firm grasp of them. However, this assertion does not always hold true.
https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1024
“The quality of the writing is very poor, barely at the level of a student term paper at a decent university … In fact, the authors merely use a textbook model in their work, which means that their work is at best at the level of a student project.” While researchers receive training in these principles during their college education, many only acquire a superficial understanding of them. For instance, incorrect theories related to microwave absorption have dominated modern research for an extended period. These inaccuracies can be readily identified using basic physics principles and mathematical skills no more advanced than what is taught in junior middle school. Surprisingly, these problems persisted unnoticed for a considerable time. Even when the issues with these theories were eventually identified, a significant number of researchers still struggled to comprehend their incorrectness. This is evident from the continued use of the flawed theories in publications without acknowledging opposing views, despite the problems having been recognized for years and relevant correction papers having been viewed and downloaded hundreds of times. It suggests that many researchers are unable to discern which theories are correct, even when the subject matter is not beyond general physics. Consequently, they opt for established but erroneous theories simply because these wrong theories have been dominated the field for a long time.
Prominent researchers sometimes dismiss fundamental theoretical research as mere textbook knowledge. It is not uncommon to hear assertions that the content taught in modern classrooms is outdated. However, it is important to acknowledge that only the most significant achievements of humanity, such as those of Newton's time, qualify for inclusion in textbooks. Few modern theories have matured to the point where they can be incorporated into textbooks. A profound understanding of textbook principles is fundamental for conducting in-depth research. While trends may shift, a deep grasp of fundamental principles remains a cornerstone of meaningful scientific inquiry.
The scarcity of groundbreaking theories in modern times compared to Newton's era is a topic of discussion. While some argue that there seems to be limited space for the development of new theories in today's scientific landscape, it's essential to remember that similar sentiments existed prior to the emergence of quantum mechanics, which revolutionized our understanding of the physical world. A contemporary example can be found in the theoretical framework for microwave absorption materials, which might necessitate a complete overhaul with a new wave mechanics theory.
https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2
Several factors contribute to the infrequency of significant theories in modern times. One prominent factor is the peer-review process. Innovative ideas often face resistance because the majority of mainstream scientists are hesitant to accept that established theories could be incorrect. This challenge is exemplified by the words of Professor Braben, who argues that peer review may hinder major discoveries, especially when radical ideas are difficult to impress upon peers before they have been proven. This reluctance to embrace novel concepts at the fringes of accepted wisdom can stifle innovation.
The rise of peer review has sparked debates about its effectiveness, with some arguing that it can deter the exploration of unorthodox ideas. This viewpoint is supported by the notion that censorship, in the form of peer review, can make old ideas more challenging to challenge. History has shown that widely accepted beliefs, such as the Earth being the center of the universe, were eventually overturned. If scientific journals existed during Copernicus' time, geocentric reviewers might have rejected his paper, believing they were preventing the spread of misinformation.
“Professor Braben argues that the introduction in the 1970s of the (peer) review of research proposals has led to a dearth of big scientific discoveries. The most radical ideas, he says, are unlikely to get funded because it is difficult to impress peers before they have been proven. … It (peer review) works well enough in the mainstream but it is at the margins where major discoveries are made, where people don’t believe in the current wisdom and want to head off into dramatically different directions. To submit those ideas to peer review is disastrous”
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn
Kill peer review, save civilization
“all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat. Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe, and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus‘ time, geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation.”
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
The rise and fall of peer review
Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion, so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work and will give you many negative comments, …. Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted, otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion, science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history. The academic world is conservative. If you don’t write your paper according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive in history is exactly this kind of research.“ (2013)
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BaFe12-iCeiO19-PPy
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/389134254
Additionally, within the academic community, there can be factionalism and hierarchy, akin to a "martial arts world," where academic authorities wield significant influence, and ordinary scholars may lack the strength to challenge their viewpoints. As more erroneous papers are published, and researchers follow these trends, even incorrect perspectives can persist, creating a cycle of tacit acceptance.
学术圈某种意义上像是个派系林立的“江湖”，学术权威如同“教主”一样，普通学者没有力量反抗其观点。
随着发表的错误论文越来越多，跟风研究的越来越多，大家都成了既得利益者，就默许了这些错误的观点继续流传下去。
———— 科技日报，2018-10-18 第01版：今日要闻，骗了全世界十余年 干细胞“学术大牛”走下神坛
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619477235832974&wfr=spider&for=pc
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619476870888302
https://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2018-10-18/2193148.shtml
Another contributing factor could be the shift in scientific priorities. In Newton's era, scientists highly valued theoretical research that employed mathematics to uncover the underlying principles behind experimental phenomena. In contrast, contemporary scientists may lean more towards conducting empirical experiments, relying heavily on cutting-edge equipment, sometimes overlooking deeper theoretical exploration.
It's important to acknowledge that there may still be opportunities for new and innovative theories to emerge. To facilitate this, maintaining a commitment to the scientific method, fostering openness to novel ideas, and encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration should remain central to research endeavors. The scientific community's ability to adapt to changing paradigms and embrace unconventional viewpoints will play a crucial role in nurturing future groundbreaking theories.
Question: A journal requires authors to do the following:
“Comments from the Editors and Reviewers:
MANDATORY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS TO AUTHOR PRIOR TO TECHNICAL REVIEW. THiS CHECKLIST MUST BE COMPLETED FULLY AND ATTACHED TO THE SUBMISSION. PLEASE READ EACH LINE. THIS HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER AFTER SEEING 1000’s OF PAPERS WITH COMMON MISTAKES
FORMAT
…
Authors MUST add several new references from 2022-2023 as this paper will be published only in late 2023 or 2024 and for it to have any archival value the references must be updated and from numerous databases like academia.edu, EBSCO, Inspec, Proquest or google scholar. References only from science direct will not be accepted, we support all publishers and not just Elsevier. No more than 15% of the references can be from any single database. We want to give fair representation to all papers cited in multiple databases and encourage you VERY STRONGLY to consider similar citations from MULTIPLE databases. I am sure you want your paper to receive citations too.
…
WE TAKE PLAGIARISM SERIOUSLY. Your similarity report MUST not exceed 5% for us to consider a technical review http://www.ithenticate.com/, Please use the ithenticate software to check your paper before submission. There are other free software for plagiarism available using google which you can use to check but we will check ONLY with ithenticate.
…”
Why should authors prioritize citing the most recent papers? Is it deemed unacceptable if the inspiration for groundbreaking discoveries is drawn from older papers or textbooks, particularly when the work paves the way for an entirely novel area of research with no recent publications available? Why can't we cite representative papers when there are plenty of them available? I believe that authors should be allowed not to cite a single paper if their arguments are rigorous, such as mathematical proofs or self-evident claims. When rigorous proof isn't possible, citing evidence from other papers should be permitted. The choice of which papers to cite should be determined solely by the manuscript's content and the literature already reviewed by the authors. However, nowadays, manuscripts not citing any references are typically rejected by editors and reviewers.
My manuscript was once rejected due to "self-plagiarism," determined solely by similarity check results from software. Why can't we reuse previously published materials when the reference sources are clearly indicated, saving readers the task of looking up the original papers for understanding? This is especially relevant when no one else is working on the same subject or when the cited views have been published but not accepted by the scientific community. What's crucial is that the main contents promote innovation.
Answer: The journal's requirements emphasize citing recent references and strict plagiarism checks, which may appear stringent but have specific reasons:
Citing Recent Papers: While older papers may contain valuable insights, citing recent papers is often encouraged because they reflect the latest developments and advancements in the field. This ensures that the research remains relevant and contributes to the current state of knowledge.
Citing Representative Papers: Citing representative papers can indeed provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature. However, journals may encourage diverse sources to prevent bias toward a particular database or publisher. The goal is to ensure that research considers a broad range of scholarly work.
Self-Evident Arguments: It's reasonable to allow authors to present self-evident or rigorously proven arguments without citations. However, the definition of "self-evident" can be subjective, and some journals may still require references to support claims, especially when they involve previously published findings.
Plagiarism Checks: Plagiarism checks are essential to maintain the integrity of research and prevent academic misconduct. While it can be frustrating, it ensures that submitted work is original. However, journals should consider the context and uniqueness of the research when evaluating similarity reports.
Repetition of Previously Published Materials: Repeating previously published materials can be acceptable, but it's crucial to provide proper citations and clearly indicate the sources. Readers should have access to the original work for verification. The goal is to maintain transparency and give credit to the original authors.
In summary, while these requirements may seem stringent, they aim to uphold the standards of academic integrity and contribute to the quality and credibility of research. They are not necessarily meant to turn science into an academic game but rather to ensure that scholarly work meets certain criteria and remains relevant and original within the academic community. Authors should consider discussing these concerns directly with the journal's editorial team for clarification and potential adjustments to the requirements.
Question: When it comes to citation practices, there's a common perception that self-citations and suggesting authors cite the work of reviewers are unethical. However, I believe that drawing attention to the reviewer's relevant work, especially when it addresses gaps in the manuscript, is entirely reasonable. Additionally, I think authors should be allowed to cite their own work in their manuscript if it's pertinent, particularly if they are experts in the subject matter or if their views haven't gained acceptance within the scientific community. After all, we encourage the promotion of published papers, so why not allow reviewers and authors to contribute to the advancement of their own work?
On another note, it's interesting to consider why figure misuse and reviewers recommending their own work are often seen as unethical, while reviewers rejecting manuscripts that challenge accepted theories due to concerns about their own reputation may be more tolerated by the scientific community. Does ethical judgment sometimes vary based on whether a minority or a majority is involved?
Answer: When it comes to citation practices and ethical considerations in research and publishing, there are several points to consider:
Self-Citation and Reviewer Citations: While there is a perception that self-citation and suggesting citations of the reviewer's work may be unethical, it is reasonable to draw attention to relevant work, whether it's the reviewer's or the author's. However, these citations should be based on merit and relevance rather than an attempt to manipulate the citation count. Authors should cite their own work when it is pertinent to the research, and reviewers can suggest citations if they genuinely contribute to the manuscript.
Citing Unaccepted Views: It is permissible to cite one's own work or the work of others, even if their views have not gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Diverse viewpoints and rigorous debate are valuable in advancing knowledge.
Promotion of Published Papers: Promoting one's own published work is allowed and common in academia. Researchers often highlight their contributions to the field.
Reviewer Bias: Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, not personal reputation or affiliation with specific theories. Bias in reviewing is generally considered unethical, and it is essential to maintain impartiality.
Ethical Consistency: Ethical standards in research and publishing should apply consistently to all individuals, regardless of their status. It's important to uphold these standards uniformly, whether dealing with minority or majority practices.
In summary, ethical considerations aim to ensure transparency, integrity, and the advancement of knowledge in research and publishing. While there may be varying opinions on certain practices, the overarching goal is to maintain professionalism and fairness in scientific discourse. Researchers, reviewers, and authors should adhere to ethical principles in their work to uphold the integrity of the scientific community.
Question: I often come across grammatical errors in papers published in prestigious journals. If a manuscript's scientific content is strong and its English is clear, despite the absence of grammatical mistakes, but it lacks elegance as it relies on straightforward language and simple words, can such manuscripts still be considered for publication?
Answer: Manuscripts with robust scientific content but less-than-perfect English grammar can still be considered for publication in reputable journals, particularly when the scientific foundation is sound and research findings remain clear. Editors and reviewers typically prioritize research quality over language concerns. However, striking a balance between clear communication and linguistic refinement is essential.
Here are some key considerations:
Clarity is Paramount: Manuscripts must be written in a clear and understandable manner to effectively communicate scientific content. While elegant language is appreciated, clarity should be the primary focus.
Proofreading and Editing: Prior to submission, it's advisable to have the manuscript proofread and edited for grammar and language issues. Many journals offer language editing services or recommend professional editing services to enhance overall readability.
Adhere to Journal Guidelines: Ensure that the manuscript conforms to the specific guidelines and formatting requirements of the target journal. Journals may have their own preferences regarding language and writing style.
Seek Feedback: Consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors proficient in English writing. They can provide valuable insights into improving language and manuscript style.
Be Open to Revision: Be receptive to revising and refining the manuscript's language based on reviewer feedback. Reviewers may provide suggestions for enhancing writing quality.
In summary, manuscripts with less polished English can still be considered for publication if they prioritize clarity and readability. It is essential to prepare, proofread, and edit manuscripts to minimize grammar errors and elevate overall communication quality. The ultimate goal is to effectively convey scientific content to readers.
Question: Some journals require authors to strictly adhere to their formatting guidelines, and if the manuscript doesn't meet these requirements, it's returned to the authors. In some cases, after authors make the necessary formatting changes and resubmit the manuscript, it's rejected either immediately or after review. Given that different journals have varying formatting requirements, why can't these formatting issues wait until the manuscript is considered acceptable?
Answer: The issue of formatting requirements in journal submissions can be frustrating for authors, especially when different journals have varying guidelines. While it may seem more practical to address formatting issues after a manuscript has been deemed acceptable for publication, journals have their reasons for enforcing strict formatting requirements from the outset:
Consistency: Journals strive for consistency in the appearance of their publications. This consistency helps readers quickly identify and navigate through various articles. By having authors adhere to formatting requirements upfront, journals can maintain this consistency throughout their publications.
Reviewer and Editor Experience: Formatting issues can sometimes make it challenging for reviewers and editors to evaluate a manuscript effectively. Ensuring proper formatting from the beginning can streamline the review process and make it easier for reviewers to focus on the scientific content.
Time and Resources: Journals aim to manage their editorial process efficiently. Requiring authors to meet formatting guidelines before review or acceptance helps journals avoid investing significant time and resources in manuscripts that may require extensive formatting revisions later.
Author Education: Enforcing formatting requirements early can educate authors about a journal's specific guidelines. This can help authors better prepare their manuscripts for submission and reduce the likelihood of major formatting issues later.
While these reasons provide insight into why journals enforce strict formatting requirements upfront, it's important for journals to strike a balance between adhering to their guidelines and providing flexibility when necessary. Some journals may offer support or guidance to authors struggling with formatting issues to help facilitate the submission process.
Authors are encouraged to carefully review a journal's formatting guidelines and seek assistance or clarification if needed before submitting their manuscripts. Additionally, authors should be aware that some journals may be more lenient with formatting issues during the initial submission, as long as the manuscript meets basic readability and organization criteria, and may require stricter adherence upon acceptance.
Question: Is it ethical for the editor of a prestigious journal to select the author of a paper as the sole reviewer for a letter commenting on that paper, and subsequently reject the letter? Furthermore, what should be done if the journal does not respond to complaints about this decision?
Answer: The practice of selecting the author of a paper as the sole reviewer for a letter commenting on their own work raises ethical concerns related to potential bias and conflicts of interest. While there are no universal rules against authors reviewing letters to comments about their papers, many reputable journals and publishers discourage or prohibit this practice precisely because it carries the risk of partiality.
The fundamental principle of the peer review process is to ensure fairness, objectivity, and impartiality. Allowing the author to review a letter commenting on their own paper can create a perception of bias, even if the author intends to act in good faith. Transparency and a commitment to unbiased evaluation are essential.
If you find yourself in a situation where the author of a paper has been selected as the sole reviewer for your letter, and you believe this is ethically questionable, you may want to bring your concerns to the attention of the journal's editorial office. Many journals have mechanisms in place to address disputes or concerns related to the peer review process. The ultimate goal is to uphold the integrity of the peer review system and maintain trust in the publication process. If the journal does not respond to your complaints, you may consider escalating the matter to the publisher or seeking guidance from relevant professional organizations or committees that oversee publishing ethics.
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。”
Translate:
“Subsequently, my father submitted the paper to the Physical Review. The journal's editor recognized the significance of this article, engaging in an extensive and rigorous five-round review, which later became known as the "five-round contest." Ultimately, the editor, having no further questions to pose, acknowledged the flawless nature of your paper. However, considering the journal's status as a mainstream physics publication, it was deemed unsuitable for publication there, and it was recommended to submit it to an alternative journal.”
Question: Is it right if a journal rejects a manuscript challenging accepted theory with the reason that the journal is a platform for mainstream theory?
Answer: Journals serve as platforms for the dissemination of scientific research and should ideally be open to a wide range of ideas and viewpoints, including those that challenge accepted theories. Rejecting a manuscript solely on the grounds that it challenges mainstream theory and stating that the journal is a forum for mainstream theory is not in line with the principles of scientific inquiry and openness.
The primary criteria for accepting or rejecting a manuscript should be the quality of the research, the soundness of the methodology, the validity of the results, and the contribution to advancing knowledge in the field. If a manuscript presents well-supported evidence and a compelling argument, it should not be rejected simply because it challenges mainstream theory.
The scientific community benefits from the exploration of alternative ideas and the testing of established theories. This process of critical evaluation and debate is essential for the advancement of science. While it is reasonable for journals to maintain high standards of evidence and methodology, they should not reject manuscripts solely because they challenge prevailing views.
Instead, journals should ensure that manuscripts undergo rigorous peer review by experts in the field who can evaluate the quality and validity of the research. If the research meets these criteria, it should be considered for publication, regardless of whether it challenges accepted theories. Scientific progress often depends on the willingness to question and reevaluate established ideas.
“XXXX does not accept submissions that contain extraordinary claims that contradict well-established physical law. Such claims require extraordinary efforts to verify, which we cannot provide.”
Question: Is it appropriate for a journal to reject a manuscript challenging accepted theory with the justification that reviewing such a manuscript would be time-consuming? Which is more important, time or advancing science?
Answer: While it is understandable that journals operate with limited resources and must manage their time efficiently, rejecting a manuscript solely on the basis of time-consuming review is not a valid reason. The primary responsibility of scientific journals is to uphold the quality and integrity of scientific research. Advancing science and knowledge should be the highest priorities, even if it requires investing additional time and effort in the review and evaluation of manuscripts.
Science thrives on curiosity, inquiry, and the willingness to challenge established theories when new evidence emerges. Rejecting a manuscript solely because it challenges accepted theory would hinder scientific progress and innovation. Therefore, the focus should remain on the quality of the research and its potential to contribute to our understanding of the subject matter.
Efforts can be made to streamline the peer review process and allocate resources efficiently, but the commitment to rigorous and impartial evaluation should always take precedence over concerns about time. Scientific journals play a crucial role in ensuring that new and groundbreaking ideas receive a fair opportunity for examination, testing, and debate within the scientific community.
Question: Is it appropriate for a journal to reject a manuscript challenging accepted theory with the justification that it's difficult to find reviewers, despite the journal having published many papers on the same subject that conform to mainstream theory, indicating an abundance of potential reviewers for manuscripts conforming to accepted theory?
Answer: Rejecting a manuscript solely because it challenges accepted theory and citing reviewer availability as a reason is not a valid practice. Scientific journals bear the responsibility of maintaining an equitable and unbiased review process. While it can be challenging to locate reviewers, especially for manuscripts that challenge established beliefs, this should not serve as grounds for an outright rejection.
Journals should strive to identify reviewers who can offer an impartial evaluation of the manuscript's scientific quality, irrespective of its alignment with accepted theory. If a journal has previously published numerous papers on the same subject that adhere to accepted theory, it is essential that they also provide a platform for diverse perspectives and viewpoints. Rejecting a manuscript solely due to reviewer availability can undermine the journal's credibility and its role in advancing scientific knowledge.
Efforts should be made to seek out reviewers who possess expertise in the subject matter and can provide constructive feedback. Moreover, journals can explore strategies to expand their pool of potential reviewers to ensure an inclusive and comprehensive review process. The primary consideration should always be the research's quality and its potential to enrich the scientific discourse, rather than its conformity to established theories.
Extension: In reality, it is true that editors often struggle to locate a sufficient number of reviewers for manuscripts challenging mainstream theories. This difficulty arises because a majority of scientists are hesitant to take a stance on such contentious issues. A similar situation occurs when considering manuscripts that challenge accepted theories, especially since experts in the field may be inclined to reject them. This reluctance stems from their reliance on the established theory as the foundation of their expertise.
“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
Answer: Indeed, the task of securing reviewers for manuscripts that challenge mainstream or accepted theories can prove to be a daunting one. Scientists may exhibit reluctance to undertake reviews of such manuscripts due to various factors, which may encompass concerns about potential repercussions or a vested interest in upholding established theories.
Nonetheless, it is imperative that scientific journals uphold their responsibility to maintain an equitable and unbiased review process, even when dealing with manuscripts that contest established paradigms. While identifying willing reviewers for such manuscripts can be more arduous, this challenge should not serve as a legitimate rationale for outright rejection. Journals must exert every effort to identify experts who can offer an impartial assessment grounded in the scientific merit of the research, irrespective of their personal perspectives or the dominant theories.
Ultimately, the progress of science hinges on the open and critical examination of all ideas, including those that challenge conventional wisdom. Scientific journals hold a pivotal role in this endeavor by furnishing a platform for diverse perspectives and the rigorous evaluation of research.
Question: Is it appropriate for the editor to assert that they must align with the reviewers solely because the reviewers provide their comments without compensation?
Answer: It's important to recognize that the editor's primary responsibility is to uphold the quality and integrity of the journal's content. While the voluntary efforts of reviewers are commendable, editors should not automatically side with reviewers solely because their services are offered without payment.
Instead, editors should ensure that the peer review process is conducted objectively, impartially, and in accordance with the journal's guidelines and standards. The editor's role is to make informed decisions about manuscript acceptance or rejection based on the quality of the research and the peer review process, while also ensuring fairness and upholding the journal's standards. The fact that reviewers provide their comments for free should not compromise the editor's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the journal.
Question: Is it justified for the editor to reject a manuscript challenging accepted theory on the grounds that it did not convince the reviewers, implying that the manuscript's argument is not strong enough for publication, especially when such manuscripts often find publication in other journals afterward?
Answer: Editors bear a critical responsibility when assessing manuscripts for publication, and their decisions should be grounded in the manuscript's scientific quality, validity, and alignment with the journal's guidelines. Rejecting a manuscript because it has not convinced reviewers or does not meet publication standards is not inherently unethical.
However, it is vital that the peer review process remains objective and thorough. If a manuscript challenging established theories faces rejection from one journal but is subsequently published in another reputable journal following rigorous peer review, it raises questions about the initial rejection's justification or that the manuscript's scientific merit was not adequately assessed.
Editors should acknowledge the potential for varying opinions among reviewers and ensure that the peer review process maintains fairness, transparency, and impartiality. When a manuscript undergoes rejection at one journal but finds acceptance at another, it underscores the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the significance of diverse perspectives in advancing knowledge.
In summary, while editors possess the authority to reject manuscripts based on their assessment of scientific quality, it is imperative that the peer review process is conducted equitably, allowing manuscripts that challenge established theories a fair opportunity for evaluation. Rejections should not stem solely from a reluctance to challenge the status quo but rather from rigorous scientific assessment.
Supplementary Reading Materials:
Realism and Theory Change in Science
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/
Even theories change
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/even-theories-change/
4 convincing scientific theories that fooled scientists for decades
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong
10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked
https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
12 - Discarded Theories
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/resisting-scientific-realism/discarded-theories/A1ECAFBD68554DD634C05A4A5FBB9DDF
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108231633.013
Superseded theories in science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
What controversy: Is a controversy misrepresented or blown out of proportion?
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/a-scientific-approach-to-life-a-science-toolkit/what-controversy-is-a-controversy-misrepresented-or-blown-out-of-proportion/
https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2
We have dedicated many years to this subject and approached it from various perspectives.
In our initial publication (Paper 22), we emphasized that the reflection loss RL cannot be employed to characterize material absorption.
Papers 15 and 16 exposed the deficiencies in the quarter-wavelength theory by highlighting the oversight of neglecting phase effects from interfaces. These papers provided compelling evidence that the absorption mechanism in films stems from wave cancellation. Through rigorous numerical verification, they established the shortcomings of the impedance matching theory.
In Paper 13, an exploration into the microwave absorption mechanism of films revealed additional insights, particularly regarding the angular and amplitude effects.
Papers 8 and 9 delved further into the intricacies of microwave absorption in films. These studies yielded valuable insights, suggesting that improved absorption in films could be achieved by employing materials with lower attenuation power and reduced microwave penetration.
Papers 5 and 6 focused on critiquing the impedance matching theory, emphasizing its inherent flaws. These critiques stemmed from the recognition that the behavior of interfaces in films differs significantly from their behavior in isolation.
Lastly, Paper 2 provided indisputable evidence that the absorption process in films fundamentally differs from the attenuation exhibited by materials along the zigzag optical path. Paper 3 developed new theoretical results for multilayered film.
1. Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael Drew, The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 1: A short review, Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3256944/v1
https://scite.ai/reference-check/e9162094-acc2-4985-9c63-9aa378f49ead?utm_source=preprint_reference_check&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=preprint_reference_check
2. Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael Drew， The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material，Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplementarial file
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3256776/v1
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3256776/v1/eb2be27b611532d7aa67a7d8.docx
3. Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael Drew， The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 3: Film with multilayers, Preprint, Research Square, 13 Aug, 2023
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3256342/v1
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3256342/v1/b3ad9c40054d953709b9ccd9.docx
https://scite.ai/reference-check/daf6425b-d80a-419c-a194-723dc9a6bb59?utm_source=preprint_reference_check&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=preprint_reference_check
4. 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]
https://shop.elsevier.com/books/porous-nanocomposites-for-electromagnetic-interference-shielding/thomas/978-0-323-90035-5
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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，
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
Paper 14 delves into the quarter-wavelength theory, albeit from a perspective distinct from that of papers 3, 5, 15, and 16.
15. 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.
16. 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
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Liu Y, Lin Y, Zhao K, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Microwave absorption properties of Ag/NiFe2-xCexO4 characterized by an alternative procedure rather than the mainstream method using “reflection loss”. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020 , 243: 122615
20. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Characterization microwave absorption from active carbon/BaSmxFe12−xO19/polypyrrole composites analyzed with a more rigorous method. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2019, 30(2) : 1936-1956.
21. Yang K, Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Preparation and characterization of BaSmxFe12 − xO19/polypyrrole composites. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2018 , 29(15) : 13148-13160, Electronic supplementary material.
22. Liu Y, Zhao K, Drew MGB, Liu Y. A theoretical and practical clarification on the calculation of reflection loss for microwave absorbing materials. AIP Advances 2018, 8(1): 015223.
23. Liu Y, Yu H, Drew MGB, Liu Y. A systemized parameter set applicable to microwave absorption for ferrite based materials. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2018, 29(2) : 1562-1575,Supplementary material.
24. Liu Y, Tai R, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 1: Transmission Line Theory and Microwave Absorption. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017 , 30(9) : 2489-2504.
25. Liu Y, Jin J, B. Drew MG, Liu Y. Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 2: Close Packing Model for Crystal Structure. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017 , 30(10) : 2777-2789.
26. Liu Y, Liu Y, Yin H, Drew MGB. Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials-Part 3: Crystal Structure and Synthesis. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(11) : 3019-3025.
抛弃“同行评议”，获得“专家共识”
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279293-1377383.html
[Ref. 1] “Can so many scientists have been wrong over the eighty years since 1925? Unhappily, yes. The mainstream in science, as any scientist will tell you, is often wrong. Otherwise, come to think of it, science would be complete. Few scientists would make that claim, or would want to. Statistical significance is surely not the only error in modern science, although it has been, as we will show, an exceptionally damaging one. Scientists are often tardy in fixing basic flaws in their sciences despite the presence of better alternatives. Think of the half century it took American geologists to recognize the truth of drifting continents, a theory proposed in 1915 by—of all eminently ignorable people—a German meteorologist. Scientists, after all, are human. What Nietzsche called the ‘twilight of the idols,’ the fear of losing a powerful symbol or god or technology, haunts us all”
Ziliak, S. T. and McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. University of Michigan Press
[Ref. 2] Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion, so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work and will give you many negative comments, …. Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted, otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion, science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history. The academic world is conservative. If you don’t write your paper according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive in history is exactly this kind of research.“ (2013)
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BaFe12-iCeiO19-PPy
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/389134254
[Ref. 3] “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”
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
[Ref. 4] “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
[Ref. 5] S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 577(7788) (2020) 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
[Ref. 6] “Poster 1: Charles Townes and the Laser
[After] we had been at it for two years, Rabi and Kusch, the former and current chairman of the department — both of them Nobel laureates for work with atomic and molecular beams, and both with a lot of weight behind their opinions — came into my office and sat down. They were worried. Their research depended on support from the same source as did mine. ‘Look,’ they said, ‘you should stop the work you are doing. It isn‘t going to work. You know it‘s not going to work. We know it‘s not going to work. You‘re wasting money. Just stop!’
But Townes had come to Columbia on tenure, so he knew he couldn’t be fired for incompetence or ordered around. Nevertheless, the awesome weight of Rabi‘s reputation in particular — a one-time senior member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s legendary Radiation Laboratory set up by Vannevar Bush to develop wartime radar — must have been daunting. Such top brass cannot be defied lightly, and showing extraordinary courage, this junior faculty member stood his ground, and respectfully told his exalted colleagues that he would continue. Two months later (in April 1954), his experiment worked, and the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) was born. Three years after that Arthur Schawlow, Townes‘ postdoc at Columbia, had moved to the Bell Laboratories, and their collaboration led to the optical version of the maser — the laser. Townes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for these discoveries [shared with Aleksander Prokhorov and Nikolai Basov (USSR), who developed the maser and laser independently]. Schawlow was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1981 for his work on laser spectroscopy.”
Donald W. Braben – Scientific Freedom – The Elixir of Civilization, Wiley Interscience (2008)
[Ref. 7] “So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
[Ref. 8] “Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don‘t please reviewers get rejected … Weak-link thinking makes scientific censorship seem reasonable, but all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat. Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe, and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus‘ time, geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation. Eugenics used to be hot stuff in science—do you think a bunch of racists would give the green light to a paper showing that Black people are just as smart as white people? Or any paper at all by a Black author? (And if you think that‘s ancient history: this dynamic is still playing out today.) We still don‘t understand basic truths about the universe, and many ideas we believe today will one day be debunked. Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth.”
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
The rise and fall of peer review
[Ref. 9] “Professor Braben argues that the introduction in the 1970s of the (peer) review of research proposals has led to a dearth of big scientific discoveries. The most radical ideas, he says, are unlikely to get funded because it is difficult to impress peers before they have been proven. … It (peer review) works well enough in the mainstream but it is at the margins where major discoveries are made, where people don’t believe in the current wisdom and want to head off into dramatically different directions. To submit those ideas to peer review is disastrous”
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn
Kill peer review, save civilization
[Ref. 10] “On the off chance you do figure out a way to improve peer review without also making it worse, you can try convincing the nearly 30,000 scientific journals in existence to apply your magical method to the ~4.7 million articles they publish every year. Good luck!”
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review
The rise and fall of peer review
[Ref. 11] “We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage in opening up our peer review process, … The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798
J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
”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.
梳理这段历史，会发现这些重大原始创新在刚面世时都遭到了业界的质疑和抵制，差点夭折。 这不是个例，浮栅晶体管、异质结、绝缘栅双极型晶体管（IGBT）、微机电系统（MEMS）、浸没式光刻等重大发明都遭到过抵制。
为什么这些发明一开始都不受待见呢？芯片的发展离不开持续的创新和超越，然而创新越大，对传统的叛逆和颠覆也越大，因而遭到传统势力的抵制就越大。
中国科学报，2023-09-16 第3版 读书
When delving into this historical period, it becomes apparent that these groundbreaking original innovations faced skepticism and opposition within the industry upon their initial emergence, nearly teetering on the brink of extinction. This phenomenon is not an isolated occurrence; major breakthroughs like floating-gate transistors, heterojunctions, insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), immersion lithography, and others have also confronted resistance.
What prompted this initial lack of acceptance for these inventions? The advancement of semiconductor technology hinges on ongoing innovation and breakthroughs. However, the greater the innovation, the more it challenges and disrupts established norms, resulting in heightened resistance from traditional forces.
Published in China Science Daily, September 16, 2023, 3rd Edition, Book Review.
https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dzzz_1.aspx?dzsbqkid=39253
https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/upload/2023/9/20239156508226.pdf
In a certain sense, the academic community resembles a faction-ridden "martial arts world," where academic authorities wield power akin to "sect leaders," and ordinary scholars lack the strength to challenge their viewpoints.
As the number of erroneous papers being published increases and more researchers follow the trend, everyone becomes a beneficiary, tacitly allowing these incorrect viewpoints to continue propagating.
— Science and Technology Daily, 2018-10-18, Page 01: Today's Headlines, Deception Spanning Over a Decade: Academic "Masters" in the Field of Stem Cells Fall from Grace
学术圈某种意义上像是个派系林立的“江湖”，学术权威如同“教主”一样，普通学者没有力量反抗其观点。随着发表的错误论文越来越多，跟风研究的越来越多，大家都成了既得利益者，就默许了这些错误的观点继续流传下去。
———— 科技日报，2018-10-18 第01版：今日要闻，骗了全世界十余年 干细胞“学术大牛”走下神坛
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619477235832974&wfr=spider&for=pc
https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619476870888302
https://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2018-10-18/2193148.shtml
讨论圈