Main text -- An Excerpt

Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science

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 – Kudos: Growing the influence of research

Ethical problems in academic peer review

The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned

Non-mainstream viewpoints

My Papers

Main text -- An Excerpt

“This study critically examines peer review, academic bias, and scientific integrity in the field of microwave absorption research. The paper documents how mainstream publications routinely ignore well-known opposing theories, reject manuscripts without concrete evidence, and perpetuate practices that resemble cargo cult science. Drawing on journal rejection correspondence, ethical guideline, and insights from public intellectuals such as Eric Weinstein and Richard Feynman, the analysis highlights systemic flaws in current peer review processes. The argument is made that present peer review serves more to safeguard the reputation of mainstream scientists than the reputation of science itself. Real peer review, in contrast, begins only after a paper has been published—when the broader scientific community can engage with and challenge the work. Proposed reforms emphasize transparency, evidence-based rejection, and the restoration of scientific integrity. The study emphasizes William Penn's principle that "right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it," particularly relevant when mistakes from the majority, big figures, and prestigious journals cannot be criticized.”

“The fundamental principle of scientific discourse requires that published mistakes be open to criticism and correction. When journals systematically reject letters pointing out errors in published papers, they violate the basic tenets of peer review and scientific integrity. Academic publishing should foster open debate about scientific theories. It should tolerate mistakes and seriously engage with contrarian theories: when an opposite theory exists, mainstream scientists ought to study it and explain in their papers why they do not adopt it. However, in practice, mainstream science often fails to engage seriously with opposing theories, even when the papers of the alternative theory are widely known and well-documented. Mainstream journals consistently reject manuscripts critical of established paradigms while simultaneously discouraging web-based dissemination of alternative viewpoints. This is particularly evident in microwave absorption research, where the majority of papers persist in endorsing the impedance-matching theory without acknowledging or refuting the newly emerged opposite wave-mechanics alternative, despite its significant visibility and downloads. Such practices that "mainstream journals do not publish views against mainstream theory" transform science into an academic game, exemplifying what Richard Feynman termed cargo cult science”

“Manuscripts challenging mainstream theories are often rejected on the basis that “there is no absolute truth”, “the evidence provided is not sufficient”, or with the claim: “while we do not question the validity of your work, I regret to inform you that your submission did not receive a high enough rating in the screening process to be considered further”. Such claims are unethical. The subject of overturning accepted theory should be classified as novel and important, and such manuscripts can only be rejected by providing contradict evidence to the arguments of the manuscripts. If reviewers cannot provide academic evidence against the arguments of the manuscripts, they should not reject them in the name of “insufficient to deny accepted theories”, but instead allow for the accumulation of evidence contrary to the theories concerned. If a theory is correct, it should withstand scrutiny from every perspective. There are no trivial matters in science, since a single contradiction may undermine the entire framework.”

“Journals frequently claim to prioritize experimental results over theoretical conclusions, reflecting a broader trend where only experiments are considered “real science.” However, experiments alone cannot negate conclusions drawn from logically sound theory. Historically, the era of alchemy was characterized by experimentation without scientific rigor, while the achievements of Newton’s time stemmed from valuing theoretical research grounded in mathematical logic. The current lack of groundbreaking theoretical advances may be due to an overemphasis on experiments at the expense of theoretical inquiry.”

“William Penn's foundational principle that "right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it" becomes critically important when examining how scientific institutions protect established paradigms. The systematic protection of mistakes from majority opinions, big figures, and voice-leading journals represents a fundamental corruption of scientific discourse. Documented evidence shows that manuscripts with mathematically rigorous rejected from many journals were finally published, demonstrating clear editorial bias against non-mainstream theories. This practice creates a closed system where correctness becomes secondary to institutional reputation and theoretical conformity.”

“… rejecting a manuscript critical of mainstream theory without providing concrete evidence invalidating its conclusions is unethical. Reviews must cite specific evidence contradicting the submission rather than appeal to consensus or journal focus.”

Richard Feynman’s “cargo cult science” concept highlights the missing element of scientific integrity—leaning over backwards to present potential errors and contradictory evidence. Feynman urges scientists not to fool themselves or the layman, reporting all facts that might invalidate their theories.

Correct conclusion was often defeated by wrong theory. Feynman’s recounting of Young’s rat-maze experiment illustrates how correct methods and criteria can be overlooked—a hallmark of cargo cult science. Correct results are often ignored: subsequent papers on rat behavior favored for incorrect conclusions and did not reference Young’s rigorous controls, despite their fundamental importance.

“The case of Lu Jiaxi (卢嘉锡) provides a compelling historical example of how mainstream journals reject mathematically sound challenges to established theories. … Ultimately, the chief editor admitted the paper was "flawless" but rejected it anyway, stating that "considering this is a mainstream physics journal, it is not suitable for publication" and suggesting submission to other journals. This case demonstrates the explicit admission by mainstream journals that they will not publish views against mainstream theories, regardless of their scientific merit.“

The documented case shows how letters attempting to correct published papers face systematic rejection without substantive scientific critique, effectively preventing the correction of errors in the published literature. This practice violates the fundamental principle that "if published mistakes are not allowed to be criticized, then you cannot call it a peer reviewed journal"

Mainstream scientists not only reject anti-mainstream papers from journals but actively discourage their dissemination through web-based platforms. The documented response "you can choose other journals, personally I think the way of crying injustice on the internet is not advisable" reveals the systematic attempt to suppress alternative viewpoints from reaching broader audiences. This demonstrates that mainstream scientists do not like to spread views against mainstream theory, whether through traditional publishing or modern digital platforms.

William Penn's assertion that truth exists independently of popular consensus provides a crucial framework for evaluating scientific integrity. Penn's principle, rooted in Quaker theology and the concept of Inner Light, emphasizes that objective truth (Capital R Right) remains valid regardless of social consensus. This principle becomes particularly relevant in scientific contexts where "mistakes from majority, big figures, and voice-leading journals cannot be criticized" without facing systematic institutional resistance. Analysis of Physical Review B editorial policies reveals systematic patterns of rejection without substantive scientific critique. The journal admits that "about 1/3rd of all submissions to PRB are rejected without such external review" with "considerable deliberation from at least two editors". However, documented cases show that this editorial discretion often operates to protect mainstream paradigms rather than evaluate scientific merit.

Papers against mainstream theories were usually published with so many rejections when the authors felt nowhere to submit them. The 2022 case of four manuscripts by Liu, Liu, and Drew demonstrates this bias in concrete terms. Physical Review B Managing Editor Anthony M. Begley rejected all four papers, stating: "we do not think that your papers present a significant enough advance in condensed matter or materials physics for our journal. Based on our experience, it is highly likely that the referees will share our concern". Critically, these same papers were subsequently accepted and published in peer-reviewed journals including Materials Chemistry and Physics and Surfaces and Interfaces, proving their scientific validity.

A 2023 rejection letter from Physical Review B Associate Editor Paul C. Snijders reveals an even more troubling stance: "We make no judgment on the correctness of the work, only on its suitability according to our other criteria... Mere correctness is no longer sufficient for publication". The paper was finally published in Optics and Laser Technology. When journals openly admit they will reject correct work based on non-scientific criteria, they cease to function as scientific institutions.

Research indicates that "mistakes happen in research papers. But corrections often don't" due to "a culture of fear around corrections and retractions". The paper, published in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pointing out common mistakes published, were rejected by almost all the journals published papers with these errors. The documented pattern shows that journals systematically reject letters pointing out errors in published papers, effectively immunizing established theories from criticism regardless of their accuracy.

Analysis of journal rejection correspondences reveals systematic patterns in how non-mainstream theories are evaluated.

Journal rejection correspondences routinely state that a manuscript “does not align with journal focus” or lacks “clearly validated insights,” without citing any specific experimental data that refute the new framework from the manuscript. This violates the ethical standard requiring concrete evidence to justify rejection.

An unspoken rule in academic publishing is that “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”. Many journals nowadays do not allow people criticizing mistakes they have published, such as “Unfortunately, this paper is formatted as a LETTER and ACS AMI no longer publishes letters”. This culture stifles critical discourse and discourages the publication of dissenting views, further entrenching mainstream paradigms.

These papers were rejected without peer review based solely on editorial assessment that they did not present "significant enough advance." However, their subsequent publication in established journals can easily testify their scientific validity and contradicts the editorial assessment.

The 2023 rejection explicitly stating "mere correctness is no longer sufficient for publication" reveals how journals prioritize perceived importance over scientific accuracy. This creates a system where mathematically sound challenges to established theories face systematic rejection, not because they are incorrect, but because they threaten established paradigms.

These cases directly violate William Penn's principle by allowing wrong theories to persist through institutional protection while rejecting right theories based on non-scientific criteria. When "mistakes from majority, big figures, and voice-leading journals cannot be criticized," the scientific enterprise transforms from truth-seeking to authority protection.

By ignoring well-downloaded counter-theories and refusing detailed critique, mainstream practitioners exhibit cargo cult traits: following the form of scientific discourse while omitting essential integrity—reporting only data that support established theories and neglecting contradictory evidence

Academic publishing operates under an implicit culture where criticism of established theories, figures, or institutions is systematically discouraged. This "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" mentality creates what researchers describe as a protective barrier around mainstream science. As documented in the literature, "people avoid criticizing established figures, journals, and misconducts committed by majority" because such criticism threatens career advancement and professional relationships. This practice led to the lack of documentation of information such as bad review reports, as noted in scholarly analyses, " and it is not good to make improvement" because it prevents the scientific community from learning from mistakes and correcting systemic problems. This culture of silence directly contradicts Feynman's principles of scientific integrity and creates conditions where cargo cult science can flourish unchallenged.

Yet, within academia itself, pointing out errors often results in professional marginalization rather than recognition for improving scientific accuracy.

The Web of Science's SCI index and similar metrics were intended as neutral bibliographic tools, yet they have morphed into a global league table that assigns prestige points to journals. Scientists—whose promotions, funding and even visas can hinge on those scores—soon discover that "where" often outweighs "what." Hyper-competition for slots in the highest quartile outlets transforms curiosity-driven inquiry into a game of score-maximization.

The result is intellectual laziness: scientists stop using their own brains to judge a study's merit and instead judge the journal. When an article appears in a Q1 title, it is automatically "excellent," even if the work is trivial or later retracted; conversely, rigorous analyses in lesser-known venues are discounted sight-unseen.

Ideally, journals should act as platforms where competing theories meet head-on. In practice they now function as achievement-evaluation bureaus, feeding institutional dashboards with impact-factor statistics. A "trash" paper in a top journal can be hailed as a milestone, while a landmark paper in an unranked outlet is ignored.

As erroneous papers multiply and citation cascades swell, entire subfields become invested in the status quo.

As more flawed papers are published and more researchers join the bandwagon, everyone turns into a stakeholder and tacitly allows wrong ideas to keep spreading. The psychology is clear: admitting error imperils grant streams, reputations and journal metrics, so silence prevails.

When journals demand alignment with prevailing paradigms instead of rigorous mathematical or theoretical validation, innovative theories are suppressed. Genuine progress, as Feynman stressed, depends on utter honesty and reporting all information that could challenge one’s conclusions.

Journals should serve as platforms for confronting different ideas. They are not achievements evaluation organizations. The value of a journal lies in fostering novelty and stimulating discussion among specialists. Even views that are ultimately proven wrong can have academic value, just as failed experimental results are published for their insights. Journals are not textbooks, and the academic journal readers are experts rather than layman. Correctness of journal articles should be judged by the readers rather by the editors and reviewers. Novelty and inspiring ideas for journal articles are the most important issues.

Science does not belong exclusively to mainstream scientists; it is often the minority that pushes science forward. The scientific community must remain open to dissenting voices and value both theoretical and experimental research. As the following quote suggests: “They should work together not just to forge a better science, but to counter true pseudoscience: homeopaths and psychics, just to mention a couple of obvious examples, keep making tons of money by fooling people, and damaging their physical and mental health. Those are worthy targets of critical analysis and discourse, and it is the moral responsibility of a public intellectual or academic—be they a scientist or a philosopher—to do their best to improve as much as possible the very same society that affords them the luxury of discussing esoteric points of epistemology or fundamental physics”

A hallmark of scientific progress is the ability to change one’s mind in light of new evidence. Science improves precisely when individuals and the community are willing to admit they were wrong. This openness to correction is essential for the self-correcting nature of science.

Physical Review's explicit admission that they reject flawless papers simply because they challenge mainstream theory reveals the systematic nature of this bias. When journals openly admit to rejecting scientifically sound papers based on their theoretical implications rather than their accuracy, they abandon any pretense of objective peer review.

If published mistakes cannot be criticized through journal corrections, the entire peer review system loses credibility. A journal that systematically rejects letters pointing out errors in published papers cannot legitimately claim to be "peer reviewed". The documented cases show that mainstream journals operate as guardians of established theory rather than facilitators of scientific progress. The explicit statement that "mainstream journals do not publish views against mainstream theory" represents a fundamental corruption of scientific publishing. When journals admit to rejecting papers based on their theoretical implications rather than their scientific merit, they transform from instruments of knowledge advancement into mechanisms of intellectual suppression. The active discouragement of web-based dissemination of anti-mainstream theories reveals the comprehensive nature of this suppression. Mainstream scientists not only control traditional publishing channels but actively discourage alternative means of scientific communication. This demonstrates that the resistance to non-mainstream theories extends beyond peer review to encompass all forms of scientific discourse.

When journals systematically reject corrections to published errors, they create an environment where mistakes become permanent fixtures in the scientific literature. This undermines the self-correcting nature of science and creates a false impression of theoretical consistency. The documented patterns suggest that maintaining the appearance of mainstream theoretical coherence takes precedence over scientific accuracy.

As the documented correspondence reveals, when journals explicitly state they will reject correct work based on perceived significance rather than accuracy, they cease to function as scientific institutions and become mechanisms for protecting established authority.

Feynman’s example of Mr. Young’s rat-maze experiment demonstrates how correct theories and methods can be ignored by the scientific community. “Not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.”

Physical Review B and other journals’ explicit admission that "mere correctness is no longer sufficient" represents a fundamental corruption of scientific standards. The documented pattern shows that established theories receive protection from criticism regardless of their accuracy, while challenges face rejection regardless of their validity. When correctness becomes secondary to editorial preference, journals abandon their scientific mission.

The systematic rejection of corrections and challenges to established theories serves to protect the reputations of mainstream scientists rather than advance scientific knowledge.

William Penn's principle provides essential grounding for scientific integrity: truth must be evaluated independently of consensus, authority, or institutional power. The documented cases demonstrate what happens when this principle is abandoned - scientifically sound work faces rejection while errors receive protection through institutional momentum.

The explicit editorial statement that "mere correctness is no longer sufficient" represents a fundamental abandonment of scientific principles in favor of protecting established paradigms.

History shows that transformational advances are typically sparked by minorities—single laboratories, lone theoreticians or the occasional editor who dares to print a dissenting view. Even after a mainstream theory is proven faulty, most senior voices cling to it; progress depends on those outliers who persist in "doing real science." Their papers, though statistically rare, propel the frontier.

In every controversial episode documented here, at least one editor or reviewer took the risk of allowing the heterodox manuscript into print. Without such minority gatekeepers, the literature would record no trace of the breakthrough at all.

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 ... History makes its own and sounder evaluations.

What is trumpeted today often proves to be orchestrated mediocrity, whereas work suppressed by influential contemporaries frequently emerges as genuine gold. Time, not the SCI index, will decide which microwave-absorption theory endures.

The documented cases of irresponsible rejection of correction letters and the admission of rejecting "flawless" anti-mainstream papers reveal systematic corruption in scientific publishing. When journals cannot be criticized for publishing mistakes, they cease to function as legitimate peer review venues. The explicit policy that "mainstream journals do not publish views against mainstream theory" represents a fundamental abandonment of scientific principles. The additional suppression of web-based dissemination shows that mainstream scientists seek to control all forms of scientific communication, not just traditional publishing.

The omission of widely known opposing theories, rejection without concrete evidence, and disregard for Feynman’s integrity principles constitute cargo cult science in microwave absorption research. Present peer review often serves to protect the reputations of mainstream scientists rather than advance scientific knowledge. These practices transform science from a truth-seeking enterprise into an academic protection system where established theories are shielded from criticism regardless of their scientific merit. Reform requires not only changes to journal policies but a fundamental recommitment to the principle that scientific theories must be open to challenge and correction through all available means of communication.

Real peer review—where the scientific community at large critically engages with published work—begins only after publication. Upholding ethical standards and fostering honest, comprehensive critique are essential to reviving true scientific innovation and ensuring that mathematical rigor and empirical evidence—not conformity—guide acceptance of new theories. Science thrives on diversity of thought, the courage to admit error, and the continuous challenge of established ideas.