Preprint: The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress

An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation

The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress: An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation

Doi: 10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1

Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202507.2152/v1

Main ideas:

This paper examines the pervasive and deeply rooted problems that impede scientific progress, with particular focus on institutional resistance to new ideas and systemic barriers that prevent the advancement of knowledge.

Our findings reveal that scientific progress is often hindered not by lack of evidence or rational discourse, but by institutional inertia, power structures, and the human tendency to resist paradigm-shifting ideas.

The peer review system, while intended to maintain quality standards, has evolved into a mechanism that frequently stifles innovation and perpetuates established orthodoxies.

Scientific advancement often occurs despite, rather than because of, existing gatekeeping mechanisms.

The advancement of scientific knowledge has never been a purely rational process guided solely by empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Throughout history, the scientific community has grappled with deeply entrenched problems that resist solution despite clear evidence of their existence and harmful effects. These problems manifest across multiple dimensions of scientific practice, from individual resistance to new ideas to systemic failures in quality control and institutional gatekeeping.

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.

the resistance of established scientists to paradigm-shifting ideas, even when supported by compelling evidence

“some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long … experts were just too timid to take a stand.”

Why do demonstrably false theories persist for decades?

How do fraudulent researchers maintain their positions for years despite mounting evidence of misconduct?

What role do peer review and academic hierarchies play in either facilitating or hindering scientific progress?

These are not isolated incidents but rather manifestations of systemic problems that require fundamental institutional reform.

scientific revolutions are "non-rational, rather than spread through 'mere force of truth and fact'".

This challenges the idealized view of science as a purely objective enterprise and acknowledges the role of human psychology, social structures, and institutional inertia in shaping scientific progress

Historical analysis reveals that many groundbreaking discoveries initially faced significant opposition from the scientific establishment.

The peer review system, while intended to maintain quality standards, often functions as a mechanism for enforcing orthodoxy and resisting unconventional ideas. Studies have shown that highly influential papers are frequently rejected by prestigious journals, with some of the most impactful work being initially dismissed by gatekeepers.

This dynamic is particularly problematic in fields where established theories face challenges from new evidence or alternative frameworks. The resistance is not merely academic.

The peer review system, as currently implemented, shows fundamental limitations in detecting fraud and ensuring research quality.

The problem is compounded by publication incentives that reward sensational claims conforming to mainstream theory over rigorous validation within theory against established one.

peer review may have actually "encouraged bad research" by creating pressure to produce results that satisfy reviewers rather than accurately reflect scientific reality.

The field of microwave absorption provides a particularly instructive example of how theoretical errors can persist for decades despite clear evidence of their invalidity. As documented in recent publications, fundamental errors in the theoretical understanding of microwave absorption in films have dominated the field for several decades, leading to widespread confusion and misdirected research efforts.

The errors stem from a basic confusion between the properties of materials and films, leading to the development of incorrect impedance matching theories and absorption mechanisms. Despite the availability of clear mathematical and physical demonstrations of these errors, the incorrect theories continue to be used and taught, perpetuated through the peer review system and academic tradition.

The evidence presented reveals that problems impeding scientific progress are not isolated incidents but rather systemic features of how scientific institutions currently operate.

This resistance occurs at multiple levels: individual (scientists resistant to new ideas), institutional (journals and funding agencies enforcing orthodoxy), and cultural (scientific communities that punish deviation from accepted norms)^{11, 15, 16}. The result is a scientific enterprise that, while claiming to pursue truth and knowledge, often functions to preserve existing power structures and theoretical frameworks.

The path forward requires courage to challenge established systems, wisdom to design better alternatives, and persistence to overcome the inevitable resistance from entrenched interests. As Planck observed, science advances one funeral at a time.

1. 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

2. 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

3. Yue Liu, Scientific Accountability: The Case for Personal Responsibility in Academic Error Correction, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/M4GGKZ

4. 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

5. 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.v4, supplementary.docx (919.54KB ).

6. 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

Why has there been no progress in physics since 1973?