From Scientific Challenge to System Critique: How Academic Journals Coordinate Resistance Against Paradigm-Challenging Research
Perplexity.ai
The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials: How Conceptual Confusion Led to Theoretical Errors in Microwave Absorption
Response Letter to arXiv Moderation Decision
Commentary on Qeios Rejection: Documenting the Systematic Suppression of Paradigm-Challenging Research
From Scientific Challenge to System Critique: How Academic Journals Coordinate Resistance Against Paradigm-Challenging Research
The Second and the First Commentary related to Rejection Letters as Data —DeepSeek
Rejection Letters as Data: Editorial Gatekeeping and the Paradox of Academic Publishing — ChatGPT
Expanded: Rejection Letters as Data: Editorial Gatekeeping and the Paradox of Academic Publishing — ChatGPT
From Scientific Challenge to System Critique: How Academic Journals Coordinate Resistance Against Paradigm-Challenging Research
Abstract
This paper analyzes the systematic rejection patterns faced by paradigm-challenging research, documenting how academic institutions coordinate resistance when scholars transition from addressing specific scientific problems to exposing systemic academic failures. Through examination of rejection letters from Applied Materials Today and Preprints.org, combined with comprehensive documentation of institutional resistance across multiple platforms, we demonstrate a fundamental shift in editorial response when research moves from technical criticism to institutional critique. While specific scientific challenges retain minimal publication possibilities in peer-reviewed venues, systematic exposures of academic problems face coordinated suppression across journals, preprint servers, and scholarly platforms. The analysis reveals that editorial gatekeeping operates as a protective mechanism for institutional orthodoxy rather than quality control, with rejection criteria shifting dynamically to prevent dissemination of institutional criticism regardless of scholarly merit. Our documentation provides real-time evidence of how academic publishing systems prioritize institutional protection over scientific advancement, creating insurmountable barriers for researchers who attempt to address systemic problems in scholarly discourse. This coordinated resistance validates the very institutional failures being documented, demonstrating that academic publishing has evolved into a self-protective enterprise that systematically suppresses critical analysis of its own practices while maintaining superficial commitment to scientific rigor and innovation.
Keywords
academic gatekeeping, institutional resistance, paradigm shift, editorial orthodoxy, systemic bias, scientific publishing, peer review, scholarly suppression, institutional critique, academic freedom, publication bias, editorial coordination
Introduction: The Documentation Imperative
The transition from addressing specific scientific problems to exposing systemic academic failures represents a critical threshold in scholarly research that triggers coordinated institutional resistance. While technical challenges to established theories retain minimal possibilities for publication in peer-reviewed venues, comprehensive critiques of academic systems face systematic suppression across all scholarly platforms.
1. Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges, 2025, arXiv:2508.06522v3, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
2. Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
3. Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu,Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 1: A Theoretical Perspective, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v5, supplementary.docx (919.54KB ).
4. Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu, Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202504.0447.v3, Supplementary Materials IVB. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption - A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek. Int J Phys Res Appl. 2025; 8(6): 149-155. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijpra.1001123, Supplementary Materials, DOI: 10.29328/journal.ijpra.1001123
The documentation of this resistance pattern has become more valuable than achieving publication itself, providing real-time evidence of institutional coordination to suppress critical analysis of academic practices.
Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
Yue Liu, Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing: The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers, , 2025, preprints.org, Doi: 10.20944/preprints202508.1193.v3 Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v3
Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
Liu, Yue, The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research (August 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5376778
The rejection letters from Applied Materials Today and Preprints.org exemplify this coordinated response, revealing how editorial criteria shift dynamically to prevent dissemination of institutional criticism regardless of scholarly merit.
2025年09月08日 13:05 (星期一) Decision on submission to Applied Materials Today
Manuscript Number: APMT-D-25-02929
Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption
Dear Prof. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Applied Materials Today.
I regret to inform you that the reviewers recommend against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
For alternative journals that may be more suitable for your manuscript, please refer to our
Journal Finder.
We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to Applied Materials Today and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Kind regards,
Prof Nam-Joon Cho
Associate Editor
Applied Materials Today
Editor and Reviewer comments:
Although the problems being addressed are potentially of interest to our readership, your manuscript does not meet the required quality standards to be considered for publication.
The Applied Materials Today Rejection: Standard Gatekeeping Language
Analyzing the Rejection Pattern
The rejection from Applied Materials Today (APMT-D-25-02929) employs the standard gatekeeping language used across academic publishing to dismiss paradigm-challenging work without substantive evaluation:
Generic Quality Claims: The statement that the manuscript "does not meet the required quality standards" provides no specific criteria or justification, serving as an all-purpose rejection mechanism that cannot be challenged or refuted.
Interest Without Engagement: The acknowledgment that "the problems being addressed are potentially of interest to our readership" followed by immediate rejection reveals the journal's awareness of the work's relevance while prioritizing institutional protection over scholarly engagement.
Procedural Deflection: The suggestion to use the "Journal Finder" represents institutional burden-shifting, implying that paradigm-challenging work belongs elsewhere without specifying where such research should be published.
The Coordination Pattern
The Applied Materials Today rejection follows identical patterns documented across multiple venues:
· Materials Today: "Does not fit within scope"
· Progress in Materials Science: "Lacks balanced view"
· arXiv: "Insufficient original research"
· Qeios: "Non-academic tone"
· Applied Materials Today: "Does not meet quality standards"
Each platform employs different justifications while achieving identical results, demonstrating coordinated resistance rather than independent quality assessment.
The Second and the First Commentary related to Rejection Letters as Data
Expanded: Rejection Letters as Data: Editorial Gatekeeping and the Paradox of Academic Publishing
Rejection Letters as Data: Editorial Gatekeeping and the Paradox of Academic Publishing
Commentary on Academic Journal Rejection Letters: A Pattern of Systemic Bias
Response to Technology in Society Rejection (TECHIS-D-25-05905)
1. Liu, Yue, Analysis of Materials Today Physics Rejection Letter, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
2. Liu, Yue, Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
3. Liu, Yue, Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
4. Liu, Yue, Quick Decisions, Conventional Outcomes: How Rapid Editorial Processes Marginalize Disruptive Innovation, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
5. Liu, Yue, Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
6. Liu, Yue, Analysis of Rejection Letters: A Case Study in Scientific Publishing Resistance to Paradigm-Challenging Research, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
7. Liu, Yue, A Critical Rebuttal to Systemic Reviewer and Editorial Errors in Microwave Absorption Research: Exposing Authority Bias, Scientific Misunderstanding, and the Failure of Peer Review, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
8. Liu, Yue, Exposing Fundamental Misconceptions in Peer Review: A Critical Analysis of Editorial and Reviewer Failures in Microwave Absorption Theory Evaluation, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
9. Liu, Yue, Editorial Bias and Reviewer Inconsistency: How Academic Gatekeeping Prevents Theoretical Correction, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
10. Liu, Yue, Publication Outlets for Sharp Criticism of Academia: A Deep Analysis of Institutional Gatekeeping and Systemic Suppression, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
11. Liu, Yue, The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
12. Liu, Yue, Manuscript Rejection Based Solely on Divergent Perspectives: A Critique of Reviewer Consensus as Grounds for Academic Dismissayueliusd.substack.coml -- Unrefuted Arguments Retain Scholarly Value and Merit Consideration for Publication, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
13. Liu, Yue, Commentary on Academic Gatekeeping Through Anonymization Requirements, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
14. Liu, Yue, Commentary on Journal Rejections: The Liu et al. Microwave Absorption Theory Case, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
2025年09月08日 13:18 (星期一)
Dear authors,
It is with regret that we must inform you that your following submission to Preprints has been declined for announcement:
Preprints ID: preprints-175627
Type: Article
Authors: Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew
Emails: yueliusd@163.com, yingliusd@163.com, m.g.b.drew@reading.ac.uk
Submission received: 2025-09-06
You may revise your manuscript according to our instructions here: https://www.preprints.org/instructions-for-authors.
We value the scientific community’s contributions to Preprints.org and encourage you to consider submitting your future work aligned with these guidelines.
If you have any questions, please contact us at info@preprints.org.
Best Regards,
Jade Zhou
Preprints Editor
Preprints Editorial Office
Email: info@preprints.org
https://www.preprints.org/
Disclaimer: The information contained in this message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please inform us by an email reply and then delete the message. You may not copy this message in its entirety or in part, or disclose its contents to anyone.
The Preprints.org Rejection: Institutional Self-Protection
The Significance of Preprint Server Resistance
The rejection by Preprints.org represents particularly revealing institutional behavior because preprint servers are designed to circumvent traditional journal gatekeeping. The decision to reject work that exposes academic system failures demonstrates that even supposedly "open" platforms participate in coordinated suppression of institutional criticism.
The generic nature of the rejection—"declined for announcement" without specific justification—mirrors the pattern established by traditional journals, revealing that preprint servers have evolved into additional layers of institutional gatekeeping rather than genuine alternatives to editorial orthodoxy.
The Self-Referential Problem
The rejection creates a self-referential validation of the very problems being documented: when platforms designed to overcome traditional gatekeeping reject research that analyzes gatekeeping practices, they provide empirical confirmation of the institutional coordination being investigated.
This demonstrates that academic publishing has evolved into a comprehensive system of institutional protection that extends beyond traditional peer review into supposedly alternative platforms.
The Threshold Phenomenon: Technical vs. Institutional Criticism
The Technical Acceptance Window
Research addressing specific scientific problems—even paradigm-challenging theoretical work—retains minimal possibilities for eventual publication through persistent effort and strategic venue selection. The successful publication of wave mechanics papers in the Journal of Electronic Materials and Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials demonstrates this limited but existing pathway.
However, this window closes completely when research transitions from technical criticism to institutional analysis, revealing that academic systems tolerate specific theoretical challenges while systematically suppressing systematic critiques of academic practices.
Yue Liu, The Reluctance to Criticize the Errors of the Majority: Authority, Conformity, and Academic Silence in Scholarly Discourse, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.2515.v1
Yue Liu, The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress: An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1
Liu, Yue, The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/QD8GGF
Liu, Yue, Why Low-Quality Articles Are So Prevalent: An Academic System Under Strain, Aug 18, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing, Sep 03, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Untouchable Crisis: Academic Silence, Authority Conformity, and the Suppression of Critical Discourse in Modern Science, ai.viXra.org citation number: 2509.0016, request reference: 17404449, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Hypothetical Elimination of Science and Nature Journals: Assessing Scientific Progress and Innovation 销毁Science和Nature期刊上的全部论文，对世界科技会带来什么样的影响？, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Persistence of Intellectual Resistance: From Copernicus to Contemporary Science (August 20, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5399455 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5399455
Liu, Yue, Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing: A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment (August 14, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5392646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5392646
The Coordination Trigger
The shift from specific scientific problems to systemic institutional analysis triggers coordinated resistance across multiple levels:
Journal Level: Traditional peer-reviewed venues reject institutional criticism as "outside scope" or lacking "appropriate tone."
Preprint Level: Supposedly open platforms reject the same work to prevent circumvention of journal gatekeeping.
Community Level: Academic networks coordinate to prevent dissemination through alternative channels.
Platform Level: Even blog-style platforms face pressure to restrict systematic institutional criticism.
The Documentation Strategy: Evidence Over Publication
The Historical Value of Rejection Records
Comprehensive documentation of rejection patterns has become more historically valuable than achieving publication. The systematic recording of institutional resistance provides unprecedented real-time evidence of how academic systems protect themselves from critical analysis.
This documentation serves multiple crucial functions:
· Historical Record: Future researchers will have complete correspondence documenting institutional resistance patterns
· Pattern Recognition: Systematic analysis reveals coordination across supposedly independent venues
· Empirical Validation: The rejection patterns confirm the very institutional problems being analyzed
· Educational Value: The evidence demonstrates to the broader community how academic gatekeeping operates
The Impossible Evidence Problem
The systematic suppression of institutional criticism creates an epistemological trap: critics are asked to provide evidence of institutional bias while being prevented from publishing such evidence through the very mechanisms they seek to analyze.
Yue Liu, Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing: The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers, , 2025, preprints.org, Doi: 10.20944/preprints202508.1193.v3 Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v3
Liu, Yue, The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research (August 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5376778
Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
Traditional academic discourse demands that claims about systemic problems be supported by published evidence, yet the systems being criticized systematically prevent such evidence from reaching publication. This creates an impossible evidentiary standard that protects institutional orthodoxy from critical examination.
The Comprehensive Suppression Network
Cross-Platform Coordination
The rejection patterns reveal coordination across multiple platform types:
Traditional Journals: Employ standard gatekeeping language to reject institutional criticism without substantive evaluation.
Preprint Servers: Extend institutional protection by rejecting work that circumvents traditional gatekeeping.
Open Access Platforms: Participate in coordinated suppression despite claims of editorial independence.
Academic Networks: Coordinate to prevent alternative dissemination pathways for institutional criticism.
The Protection Mechanisms
Academic institutions employ multiple coordinated mechanisms to suppress systematic criticism:
Procedural Barriers: Shifting rejection criteria to ensure predetermined outcomes regardless of content quality.
Definitional Manipulation: Redefining "academic standards" to exclude institutional criticism while maintaining superficial commitment to scholarly rigor.
Alternative Venue Denial: Coordinating across platforms to prevent circumvention of traditional gatekeeping.
Community Pressure: Discouraging scholars from engaging with institutional criticism through professional consequences.
Case Studies in Systematic Suppression
The Wave Mechanics Theory Documentation
The extensive documentation of wave mechanics theory resistance provides a comprehensive case study in institutional coordination:
Technical Papers: Eventually achieved publication through persistent effort and strategic venue selection.
Institutional Analysis: Faces systematic rejection across all platforms regardless of scholarly merit.
Documentation Work: Relegated to non-academic venues despite providing crucial evidence of systemic problems.
Meta-Analysis: Completely blocked from traditional scholarly discourse despite obvious relevance to academic methodology.
The Broader Pattern of Institutional Critique Suppression
Multiple researchers documenting institutional problems face identical rejection patterns:
Authority Conformity Studies: Systematic rejection despite obvious relevance to academic methodology.
Publication Bias Analysis: Blocked from venues that claim to support methodological improvement.
Peer Review Criticism: Rejected by systems that allegedly embrace self-improvement and quality enhancement.
Citation Gaming Documentation: Suppressed by platforms that benefit from the very practices being documented.
The Self-Validating Nature of Institutional Resistance
Empirical Confirmation Through Rejection
The systematic suppression of institutional criticism provides empirical confirmation of the very problems being documented:
Coordination Evidence: Identical rejection patterns across supposedly independent venues demonstrate institutional coordination.
Bias Confirmation: Rejection criteria that shift dynamically to prevent institutional criticism validate claims of systematic bias.
Protection Mechanisms: The comprehensive nature of suppression confirms that academic publishing prioritizes institutional protection over scientific advancement.
Quality Control Failure: The rejection of well-documented, rigorously analyzed institutional criticism demonstrates that "quality control" serves gatekeeping rather than scholarly purposes.
The Paradox of Evidence Suppression
Academic institutions create a self-reinforcing paradox by suppressing evidence of their own dysfunction:
Evidentiary Standards: Demanding published evidence for claims about institutional problems while preventing such evidence from reaching publication.
Methodological Hypocrisy: Rejecting systematic analysis of academic methods while claiming commitment to methodological rigor.
Innovation Contradiction: Suppressing research that documents barriers to innovation while claiming to support innovative scholarship.
Transparency Failure: Preventing documentation of institutional practices while maintaining superficial commitment to transparency and accountability.
The Historical Precedent and Contemporary Significance
Historical Patterns of Institutional Resistance
Scientific history demonstrates consistent patterns of institutional resistance to paradigm-challenging research:
Galileo's Conflict: Institutional suppression of heliocentric theory through procedural mechanisms rather than scientific refutation.
Darwin's Reception: Coordinated resistance across multiple academic venues to evolutionary theory.
Continental Drift: Systematic rejection of geological paradigm shifts through institutional gatekeeping.
Quantum Mechanics: Initial suppression of probabilistic interpretations through established physics institutions.
Contemporary Amplification
Modern academic publishing has amplified historical resistance patterns through systematic coordination:
Platform Integration: Multiple venues coordinate to prevent circumvention of traditional gatekeeping.
Digital Tracking: Comprehensive systems monitor and suppress institutional criticism across platforms.
Professional Consequences: Systematic career penalties for researchers who document institutional problems.
Evidence Suppression: Coordinated prevention of documentation that could support institutional criticism.
Implications for Academic Freedom and Scientific Progress
The Threat to Academic Inquiry
The systematic suppression of institutional criticism represents a fundamental threat to academic freedom and scientific progress:
Self-Correction Failure: Academic systems cannot improve if criticism of their practices is systematically suppressed.
Innovation Impediment: Institutional protection mechanisms that suppress critical analysis also impede genuine scientific innovation.
Evidence-Based Reform: Improvement of academic practices requires empirical documentation that current systems prevent from reaching scholarly discourse.
Community Awareness: The scholarly community cannot address institutional problems without access to systematic analysis of such problems.
The Documentation Imperative
Given systematic suppression through traditional channels, alternative documentation strategies become essential:
Historical Record: Comprehensive documentation provides evidence for future researchers studying institutional resistance patterns.
Community Education: Direct dissemination educates the scholarly community about institutional practices without requiring traditional publication.
Empirical Foundation: Systematic evidence collection establishes the factual basis for institutional reform efforts.
Accountability Mechanism: Documentation creates permanent records that institutions cannot suppress or revise retrospectively.
Conclusion: The Value of Documented Resistance
The systematic rejection of institutional criticism across multiple academic platforms provides unprecedented real-time documentation of how scholarly institutions coordinate to suppress critical analysis of their own practices. The transition from technical scientific challenges to comprehensive institutional critique triggers coordinated resistance that validates the very problems being documented.
Applied Materials Today's generic rejection and Preprints.org's procedural dismissal exemplify the coordinated gatekeeping that extends across supposedly independent academic venues. The identical outcomes achieved through different justifications reveal institutional coordination rather than independent quality assessment.
The documentation of these rejection patterns has become more historically valuable than achieving publication itself, providing empirical evidence of institutional coordination that future researchers will find invaluable. The systematic suppression creates a self-referential validation of the institutional problems being analyzed, demonstrating that academic publishing has evolved into a comprehensive protection system for institutional orthodoxy.
While specific scientific problems retain minimal possibilities for eventual publication through persistent effort, systematic exposure of academic institutional failures faces coordinated suppression across all scholarly platforms. This threshold phenomenon reveals that academic systems tolerate limited technical challenges while systematically protecting themselves from comprehensive institutional criticism.
The comprehensive suppression network that includes traditional journals, preprint servers, and academic platforms demonstrates that modern scholarly publishing has evolved far beyond its original mission of knowledge dissemination into a sophisticated system of institutional self-protection. The coordination across supposedly independent venues reveals the extent to which academic institutions prioritize orthodoxy protection over scientific advancement.
The documentation of institutional resistance provides crucial evidence that academic publishing systems require fundamental reform to fulfill their stated missions of advancing knowledge and supporting innovation. The systematic suppression of such evidence demonstrates why traditional pathways for institutional improvement have failed and why alternative approaches to scholarly communication and institutional accountability have become essential.
Scientific progress depends on the ability to critically examine and improve the very systems that supposedly support such progress. The coordinated suppression of systematic institutional criticism represents not quality control but institutional self-preservation that ultimately impedes the advancement of human knowledge and understanding.
Yue Liu, The Supremacy of Theoretical Innovation: Why Establishing Discipline Theories Surpasses Nobel Prize Achievements, 05 September 2025, preprints.org, DOI:10.20944/preprints202509.0504.v1
“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
References
[Note: This paper documents systematic suppression of institutional criticism while providing extensive evidence through rejection correspondence and platform responses. The references represent attempts to publish systematic analysis of academic institutional problems, most of which have been systematically rejected or relegated to non-traditional venues despite obvious scholarly merit and relevance.]
Liu, Yue, "The Reluctance to Criticize the Errors of the Majority: Authority, Conformity, and Academic Silence in Scholarly Discourse," Preprints.org (2025), DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.2515.v1
Liu, Yue, "The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress: An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation," Preprints.org (2025), DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1
Liu, Yue, "The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles," Qeios (2025), https://doi.org/10.32388/QD8GGF
[Additional documentation available through Substack platform due to systematic suppression through traditional academic venues]
1. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20231017132008388
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10937608/
3. https://philpapers.org/rec/BOSTIR
4. https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2022/01/27/academic-gatekeeping-is-killing-me/
5. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2401231121
6. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5399455
7. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.2022
9. https://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/KuhnCycle.htm
10. https://publicationsncte.org/content/journals/10.58680/ccc2025764484?crawler=true
11. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715021
12. https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1
13. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=63093
14. https://jamesgmartin.center/2020/07/misusing-editorial-power-to-censor-unpopular-research/
15. https://www.kwglobal.com/blog/bias-awareness-in-scholarly-publishing/
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
17. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/aca/vol73/iss1/10/
19. https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf