Preprint -- The Inevitability and Necessity of Error in Scientific Publishing: Why Publishing Incorrect Articles Is Not Catastrophic
Preprint
Liu, Yue, The Inevitability and Necessity of Error in Scientific Publishing: Why Publishing Incorrect Articles Is Not Catastrophic (September 15, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5491906 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5491906
Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying and Drew, Michael G. B., The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials: How Conceptual Confusion Led to Theoretical Errors in Microwave Absorption (September 17, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5498078 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5498078
Liu, Yue, The Primacy of Theoretical Foundations: Why Textbooks and Monographs Matter more than Journal Literature in Scientific Progress (September 09, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5465615 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5465615
Liu, Yue, The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5463155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5463155
Liu, Yue, The Inevitability and Necessity of Error in Scientific Publishing: Why Publishing Incorrect Articles Is Not Catastrophic (September 15, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5491906 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5491906
Liu, Yue, The Right to Academic Freedom: Why Scholarly Articles Should Not Require Citations and the Critique of the Academic Gaming System (September 06, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5452134 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5452134
Liu, Yue, The Academic Publishing Mythology: When Quality Control Becomes Quality Obstruction (September 12, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5478626 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5478626
Liu, Yue, Conflict of Interest in Academic Publishing: A Question of Accountability in the Pursuit of Truth (September 11, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5470606 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5470606
Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, Redefining Review Articles: Beyond Balance Toward Theoretical Innovation (September 01, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5434337 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5434337, Liu, Yue, Redefining Review Articles: Beyond Balance Toward Theoretical Innovation, Sep 01, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Philosophical Battle Between Dialectical Materialism and Idealistic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Analysis Through the Lens of Scientific Method (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5447975 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5447975
Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing (September 03, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5436920 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5436920, Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing, Sep 03, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping (August 30, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5421094 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5421094, Liu, Yue, Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping, 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
Liu, Yue, Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research (August 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5379953 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5379953
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
Excerpts
This paper challenges the dominant paradigm that views the publication of incorrect articles as catastrophic events requiring prevention through stringent peer review mechanisms. Through systematic analysis of contemporary scientific publishing, we demonstrate that current peer review systems, combined with the empirical orthodoxy that prioritizes experimental research over theoretical innovation, have transformed prestigious journals into sources of erroneous content while paradoxically suppressing corrective mechanisms. We argue that publishing incorrect articles is a natural and necessary component of scientific progress, analogous to genetic variation in biological evolution, where diversity enables natural selection of superior ideas. The analysis reveals that peer review has failed to prevent the publication of incorrect articles—with estimates suggesting 90% of published research contains errors and 95% constitutes low-quality contributions—while simultaneously blocking corrective articles that could rectify these errors. Historical comparison with the Newton era, when absence of formal peer review allowed both erroneous and revolutionary ideas to compete naturally, demonstrates that artificial gatekeeping mechanisms disrupt the natural correction processes that maintain scientific integrity. We propose that the preprint model, lacking perverse incentive structures, actually produces higher quality research because authors are motivated by conviction rather than career advancement. The paper concludes that embracing error as inevitable, while establishing robust correction mechanisms, represents a more effective approach to scientific quality than futile attempts to prevent all errors through institutional control.
The contemporary scientific establishment operates under a fundamental misapprehension: that publishing incorrect articles represents a catastrophic failure requiring prevention through ever-more-stringent gatekeeping mechanisms. This perspective has led to the development of complex peer review systems, impact factor hierarchies, and quality control bureaucracies designed to filter out potentially erroneous content before publication. However, mounting evidence suggests that these mechanisms have achieved the opposite of their intended effect, transforming prestigious journals into sources of systematic error while suppressing the natural correction processes that historically maintained scientific integrity.
The magnitude of this problem has become increasingly apparent through empirical studies revealing that approximately 90% of published scientific articles contain significant errors, while 95% of publications constitute low-quality contributions with minimal scientific value. Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo's observation that "90% of the opinions in top journals like CNS [Cell, Nature, Science] are incorrect" provides authoritative confirmation of the systematic failure of contemporary quality control mechanisms.
This paper argues that the publication of incorrect articles is neither catastrophic nor preventable, but rather represents a natural and necessary component of scientific progress. The attempt to eliminate error through institutional gatekeeping has disrupted the natural selection processes that enable scientific self-correction, creating systems that perpetuate rather than resolve theoretical confusion. The solution lies not in stronger error prevention, but in robust error correction mechanisms that allow superior ideas to emerge through natural competition rather than artificial selection by gatekeeping authorities.
Recent systematic analyses have revealed the stunning prevalence of errors in published scientific literature.
These figures are not anomalous but represent the predictable outcome of systems that prioritize publication quantity over quality. The "publish or perish" culture, combined with impact factor incentives, has created powerful motivations for producing publications regardless of their scientific merit. Researchers optimize for publication success rather than scientific truth, leading to the systematic production of technically competent but scientifically worthless contributions.
The problem extends beyond mere mediocrity to active error propagation. Liu's analysis of materials science publications reveals systematic conceptual confusions that persist across multiple papers and journals, indicating that peer review mechanisms not only fail to catch errors but actively perpetuate them through citation networks and methodological orthodoxies.
Liu, Yue, The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5463155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5463155
Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing (September 03, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5436920 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5436920, Liu, Yue and Liu, Ying, 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 Academic Publishing Mythology: When Quality Control Becomes Quality Obstruction (September 12, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5478626 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5478626
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
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, 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 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, Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Commentary on the Applied Materials Today Rejection: Evidence of Coordinated Academic Gatekeeping
Contemporary peer review, despite its reputation as a quality control mechanism, actually functions as an error amplification system that systematically favors conformist mediocrity over innovative correction. The system operates through several pathological mechanisms
Paradigmatic Bias: Reviewers trained within established theoretical frameworks systematically reject challenges to dominant paradigms, even when those challenges are technically superior. This creates selection pressure favoring theoretical conservatism over scientific accuracy.
Methodological Orthodoxy: The emphasis on experimental validation over theoretical innovation has led to systematic devaluation of corrective theoretical work. Papers that identify fundamental theoretical errors face rejection, regardless of their logical rigor or empirical support.
Careerism Over Truth-Seeking: Reviewers and editors, operating within the same incentive structures as authors, prioritize papers that enhance their own career prospects rather than those that advance scientific understanding. This creates systematic bias against work that threatens established research programs.
Citation Network Effects: The peer review system reinforces existing citation networks by favoring papers that cite established authorities, creating self-perpetuating cycles of error propagation.
The Preprint Quality Paradox
Paradoxically, preprint servers—which lack formal peer review mechanisms—often produce higher quality research than traditional journals. This counterintuitive result reflects fundamental differences in publication motivations:
Conviction vs. Career Advancement: Authors publishing on preprint servers are typically motivated by conviction in their ideas' correctness rather than by career advancement opportunities. This intrinsic motivation leads to more careful theoretical development and rigorous error-checking.
Absence of Perverse Incentives: Preprint platforms lack the impact factor metrics and prestige hierarchies that drive much low-quality journal publication. Authors cannot gain career benefits from publishing mediocre work on preprint servers, eliminating major sources of publication pollution.
Natural Quality Selection: Without artificial gatekeeping mechanisms, preprint quality emerges through natural selection processes, where valuable contributions gain attention through community recognition rather than editorial decree.
Correction Accessibility: Preprint platforms enable rapid correction and updating of erroneous content, while journal articles remain permanently fixed even when their errors are identified.
Historical Perspective: The Newton Era and Natural Error Correction
…
“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
The Corruption of Modern Scientific Communication
Contemporary scientific institutions have systematically corrupted the natural processes that historically maintained scientific quality:
…
Perpetual Error Propagation: The combination of publication incentives with paradigmatic gatekeeping creates self-reinforcing systems where errors persist indefinitely through continuous production of confirmatory but erroneous research.
“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
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.shtm
The Natural Selection Model of Scientific Progress
Biological Analogies and Scientific Evolution
Scientific progress operates through mechanisms analogous to biological evolution, where diversity enables natural selection of superior variants. Just as biological evolution requires genetic variation—including many deleterious mutations—to generate adaptive improvements, scientific progress requires theoretical diversity—including many incorrect ideas—to enable the emergence of superior understanding.
The attempt to eliminate error from scientific publishing is analogous to eliminating genetic variation from biological populations: both approaches prevent the natural selection processes necessary for adaptive improvement. A scientific ecosystem that publishes only "correct" ideas, like a biological population with minimal genetic diversity, lacks the variation necessary for evolutionary progress.
…
Market Economics and Scientific Communication
The superiority of market economics over planned economics provides another instructive analogy for scientific communication systems. Just as centrally planned economies fail because they cannot process the distributed information necessary for optimal resource allocation, centrally controlled scientific communication fails because editors and reviewers cannot possess the distributed knowledge necessary for optimal theoretical selection.
…
Systemic Error Propagation Through Quality Control
Contemporary attempts to eliminate error through peer review have created systematic error propagation mechanisms that are more destructive than the errors they attempt to prevent. These mechanisms operate through several pathways:
…
The Death of Correction Mechanisms
The most serious consequence of contemporary peer review systems is not their failure to prevent errors but their systematic suppression of correction mechanisms. This represents a qualitative change from historical scientific practice where errors could be challenged and corrected through natural scientific processes.
…
The Academic "Jianghu" System
Contemporary scientific institutions have evolved into systems resembling traditional Chinese "jianghu" (江湖)—martial arts underworlds characterized by competing factions, personal loyalty networks, and authority-based rather than merit-based evaluation. In this system:
…
The Necessity and Inevitability of Error
Error as Natural Scientific Phenomenon
Publishing incorrect articles is neither catastrophic nor preventable but represents a natural feature of scientific inquiry analogous to genetic mutation in biological evolution. Just as biological systems tolerate high rates of deleterious mutation because the occasional beneficial mutation drives adaptive evolution, scientific systems must tolerate high rates of theoretical error because the occasional breakthrough insight drives scientific progress.
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
…
The Futility of Error Prevention
Attempts to prevent error through institutional gatekeeping are both futile and counterproductive. The evidence demonstrates that:
…
Error Tolerance as Scientific Virtue
Rather than viewing error as failure, scientific communities should embrace error tolerance as a necessary virtue for maintaining scientific progress. This perspective involves:
…
Distinguishing Journals from Textbooks
A crucial conceptual confusion underlies contemporary quality control obsessions: the conflation of academic journals with educational materials. This confusion has led to inappropriate application of pedagogical standards to research communication platforms.
…
Expert Community Capabilities
The paternalistic assumption that expert readers require editorial protection from potentially incorrect content undermines the fundamental premise of scientific expertise. If scientific communities lack the capability to evaluate research critically, the entire enterprise of specialized scientific knowledge becomes questionable.
…
Diversity Requirements for Scientific Progress
Scientific progress requires theoretical diversity that enables natural selection of superior ideas. Editorial attempts to filter out potentially incorrect content reduce the diversity necessary for scientific evolution.
…
The publication of incorrect articles represents neither catastrophic failure nor preventable tragedy but rather a natural and necessary component of scientific progress. Contemporary attempts to eliminate error through peer review gatekeeping have achieved the opposite of their intended effects, transforming prestigious journals into sources of systematic error while suppressing the correction mechanisms that historically maintained scientific integrity.
The evidence demonstrates that approximately 90% of published articles contain significant errors while 95% contribute little scientific value, revealing the complete failure of quality control mechanisms to achieve their stated objectives. More seriously, these systems actively suppress corrective articles that could rectify published errors, creating institutional protection for theoretical mistakes that would naturally be eliminated under open publication systems.
Historical analysis reveals that the Newton era, characterized by absence of formal peer review, produced the fundamental theoretical frameworks that continue to underpin modern science. This success demonstrates that error prevention through institutional gatekeeping is unnecessary for scientific progress and may actively impede it by disrupting natural correction processes.
The solution lies in embracing error as inevitable while establishing robust correction mechanisms that enable superior theories to emerge through natural selection rather than editorial decree. Preprint servers, which lack perverse publication incentives, already demonstrate superior quality outcomes compared to traditional journals because authors are motivated by theoretical conviction rather than career advancement.
Scientific progress operates through mechanisms analogous to biological evolution and market economics, where diversity enables natural selection of superior variants. Just as biological systems tolerate high rates of deleterious mutation to generate occasional beneficial variants, and market systems tolerate business failures to enable economic innovation, scientific systems must tolerate high rates of theoretical error to enable breakthrough discoveries.
The academic journal should function as information platform serving expert communities capable of critical evaluation rather than as educational material requiring editorial certification. Scientific readers possess the expertise necessary to evaluate research claims independently and should not be subjected to paternalistic editorial filtering that reduces the theoretical diversity necessary for scientific progress.
The contemporary scientific communication crisis requires fundamental reform that dismantles harmful gatekeeping mechanisms, eliminates perverse publication incentives, and enables natural quality emergence through community evaluation. Such reform would restore the natural correction processes that historically maintained scientific integrity while enabling the theoretical innovation necessary for continued scientific progress.
Error is not the enemy of science but its necessary companion in the search for truth. The enemy is the institutional attempt to eliminate error through mechanisms that suppress the natural processes of correction and improvement that enable scientific communities to distinguish truth from falsehood over time. Embracing error while strengthening correction represents the path forward for restoring scientific communication to its essential function of enabling theoretical progress through natural selection of superior ideas.
Liu, Y. The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles. Qeios 2025. DOI: 10.32388/QD8GGF
Liu, Y. Why Low-Quality Articles Are So Prevalent: An Academic System Under Strain. yueliusd.substack.com 2025.
Liu, Y. The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research. yueliusd.substack.com 2025.
Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: 90% of the opinions in top journals like CNS are incorrect. Sohu News 2020. Available at: https://www.sohu.com/a/423577113_788170
Liu, Y. The Hypothetical Elimination of Science and Nature Journals: Assessing Scientific Progress and Innovation. yueliusd.substack.com 2025.
Liu, Y. The Supremacy of Theoretical Innovation: Why Establishing Discipline Theories Surpasses Nobel Prize Achievements. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202509.0504.v1
Aly, Kamal A. Comment on the relationship between electrical and optical conductivity used in several recent papers published in the journal of materials science: materials in electronics. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2022, 33, 1960-1965. DOI: 10.1007/s10854-021-07496-9
Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M.G.B. Review: Clarifications of concepts concerning interplanar spacing in crystals with reference to recent publications. SN Applied Sciences 2020, 2(4), 755. DOI: 10.1007/s42452-020-2498-5
Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M.G.B. Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections: A focused review. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2025, 64(7), 3635–3650. DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04544
Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5436920
Liu, Y. Wu Wei Governance: A Philosophical Framework for Addressing the Academic Research Crisis and Institutional Gatekeeping. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5421094
Liu, Y. Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5379953
Liu, Y. The Philosophical Battle Between Dialectical Materialism and Idealistic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Analysis Through the Lens of Scientific Method. SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5447975
Liu, Y. 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 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
Kline, M. Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times. Oxford University Press, 1972. ISBN 0-19-506136-5