Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories
Prprint
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
Redefining Review Articles: Beyond Balance Toward Theoretical Innovation
Yue Liu *, Ying Liu
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034, yueliusd@163.com (Yue Liu), yingliusd@163.com (Ying Liu)
ORCID:
Yue Liu: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730
Ying Liu: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9862-5786
Abstract
This article challenges the prevailing academic view that review articles are merely balanced, passive syntheses of existing literature. It advocates for a new paradigm in scientific publishing in which review articles play a central role as engines of theoretical innovation. Drawing on historical examples—from atomic theory and quantum mechanics to the critique of the phlogiston and the analysis of paradigm shifts—this work demonstrates that the most transformative advances in science have arisen from comprehensive theoretical reviews, not just from new experimental data. It further critiques the empirical orthodoxy and authority-driven practices that dominate modern journal policies, emphasizing the need for reviews that critically analyze and synthesize disparate findings, identify flaws in current models, and propose superior new frameworks. The article also highlights the detrimental impact of the "balanced view" ideology, which can create false equivalence between empirically-supported theories and those upheld only by tradition or consensus, thereby frustrating scientific progress. Ultimately, the article calls on journals and the scientific community to elevate the status of review work as the highest form of theoretical advancement, essential for driving genuine scientific progress.
Keywords
review articles; theoretical innovation; scientific publishing; balanced view; paradigm shift; empirical orthodoxy; authority bias; wave mechanics theory; impedance matching theory; critical synthesis; conceptual analysis; scientific progress; historical examples; peer review reform; academic discourse
The True Nature of Scientific Reviews
The contemporary academic understanding of review articles as merely "balanced" summaries of existing literature represents a fundamental misunderstanding of their scientific purpose and potential. Review articles should not be limited to balanced compilations of previous work—they should constitute the most important theoretical innovation in science. This misconception has profound implications for scientific progress, as it relegates one of the most powerful tools for theoretical advancement to the role of passive literature synthesis.
As demonstrated in our analysis of editorial orthodoxy in academic publishing, the prevailing "balanced view" paradigm in scientific reviews often becomes a mechanism for protecting established theories from critical examination rather than advancing scientific understanding. The demand for artificial balance between correct and incorrect theories fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scientific truth and the role of theoretical analysis in advancing knowledge.
Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories
‘You will appreciate that it is up to the editors of a journal to decide whether a paper will be suitable for their journal or not. Progress in Materials Science has a reputation for publishing only balanced review articles. I will refrain from entering a discussion on what constitute a “balanced” review. Let me only state the notion of a “correct theory” (which you are alluding to) is already extremely dubious: philosophy of science has shown that theories are always approximations to reality and can never be proven, but only disproven by conflicting experimental data. In that sense, the style of your reply reinforces my original decision.‘
The Misperception of Theory in Modern Science
A pervasive and damaging misconception in contemporary academia holds that review articles lack innovation, that theoretical articles constitute mere opinion pieces rather than scientific research, and that science consists exclusively of experimental work. This empirical orthodoxy—the belief that only experimental data collection constitutes legitimate scientific research—represents a profound misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge advances.
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
As documented in our comprehensive critiques of modern research paradigms, many researchers erroneously believe that:
Scientific research requires new experimental data
Theoretical analysis constitutes opinion rather than research
Truth is singular and absolute, precluding the existence of definitively correct theories
Experimental work inherently supersedes theoretical investigation
These misconceptions reflect a fundamental ignorance of scientific history and methodology, reducing science to mere data collection rather than the pursuit of theoretical understanding that transforms isolated observations into coherent knowledge.
The Historical Reality of Revolutionary Reviews
The most transformative advances in scientific history have been comprehensive theoretical syntheses—essentially review articles that discovered previously unseen patterns and principles within existing knowledge. Consider the revolutionary theoretical contributions that fundamentally changed human understanding:
The Rydberg Formula Discovery: A mathematics teacher's recognition that a simple mathematical formula could unify all published hydrogen spectral line positions represented paradigmatic review work—theoretical insight that revealed underlying order in apparently disconnected experimental observations.
Bohr's Atomic Theory: Rather than conducting new experiments, Niels Bohr created a theoretical framework that provided coherent interpretation of existing atomic spectroscopy data. This exemplifies how theoretical reviews transform isolated experimental results into systematic understanding.
Dalton's Atomic Theory: John Dalton's genius lay not in discovering new experimental data, but in recognizing that existing observations (the law of definite composition, law of multiple proportions) could be unified under a single theoretical framework. This theoretical synthesis—a comprehensive review of existing chemical knowledge—established the foundation of modern chemistry.
Quantum Mechanics: The revolutionary framework emerged from theoretical synthesis of classical particle mechanics and wave mechanics, creating modern atomic and molecular theory. This represents humanity's greatest theoretical review—the unification of previously separate theoretical domains into a coherent framework that transformed our understanding of physical reality.
These theoretical syntheses represent the highest form of scientific achievement, elevating human understanding from alchemical empiricism to systematic science.
Rutherford's True Legacy: Theoretical Review, Not Experimental Discovery
Ernest Rutherford's greatest contribution was not his scattering experiments, but his theoretical interpretation that revealed the atomic nucleus concept underlying the experimental observations. Without this theoretical review work, the scattering experiments would have remained incomprehensible data points. The mathematical analysis that transformed scattered experimental results into nuclear theory represents the essence of what review articles should accomplish—theoretical insight that reveals previously hidden principles within existing knowledge.
This exemplifies how theoretical reviews serve as the bridge between raw experimental observation and scientific understanding. Data without theoretical framework remains meaningless; theory without empirical grounding lacks validation. The highest scientific achievement occurs when theoretical review work successfully unifies and explains existing experimental observations.
The Phlogiston Paradigm: Theory, Evidence, and Logical Analysis
The phlogiston theory's historical trajectory illuminates the relationship between experimental evidence and theoretical analysis. Phlogiston theory was originally supported by extensive experimental observations—yet was ultimately refuted not by new experiments, but by elementary mathematical logic and theoretical analysis. This demonstrates that scientific progress often depends more on theoretical insight than experimental accumulation.
The overthrow of phlogiston theory did not indicate the absence of absolute scientific truth, but rather humanity's ongoing quest to discover genuinely correct theoretical frameworks. The replacement of phlogiston with oxidation theory represents theoretical progress toward more accurate understanding of chemical processes.
Galileo's Theoretical Methodology: Logic Over Experiment
Galileo's revolutionary contributions stemmed from theoretical logic and thought experiments rather than physical experimentation. The legendary (and likely apocryphal) leaning tower experiment, if conducted, would have failed due to air resistance effects. Galileo's genuine achievement involved theoretical analysis and logical demonstration of principles that contradicted established consensus.
Scientific advancement often occurs when scientists use rigorous logical analysis to validate intuitive insights that challenge accepted paradigms. This process represents the highest form of theoretical review work—the systematic logical examination of fundamental assumptions that reveals new theoretical frameworks.
Physical Review Journals: Research, Not Review
Interestingly, despite their name, Physical Review journals primarily publish original research articles rather than review work. This nomenclature reflects the historical understanding that reviews represent advanced theoretical analysis rather than mere literature compilation. The most prestigious "review" journals recognize that genuine review work constitutes sophisticated theoretical research that advances scientific understanding.
Review Articles as Supreme Theoretical Innovation
Genuine review articles represent the highest form of scientific innovation because they accomplish what individual experimental studies cannot: the synthesis of disparate observations into unified theoretical frameworks that reveal previously hidden principles. This theoretical synthesis requires:
Deep understanding of existing experimental literature across multiple domains
Mathematical and logical sophistication to identify unifying principles
Theoretical creativity to propose novel frameworks that explain existing observations
Critical analysis to identify fundamental flaws in established paradigms
Predictive insight that generates testable hypotheses for future investigation
These requirements exceed those of typical experimental studies, which often focus on narrow technical questions within established theoretical frameworks.
The Transformation from Alchemy to Science
The transition from alchemy to systematic science occurred through comprehensive theoretical reviews that identified underlying principles within accumulated empirical observations. Alchemists conducted countless experiments but remained trapped in empirical confusion until theoretical frameworks emerged that could organize and interpret their observations.
Modern science's foundation rests on theoretical syntheses that transformed disconnected empirical observations into systematic knowledge. This historical pattern demonstrates that review articles—when properly conceived as theoretical innovation rather than literature compilation—constitute the primary mechanism through which scientific understanding advances.
Redefining Review Excellence
Exceptional review articles should:
Identify fundamental theoretical problems within established paradigms
Propose novel theoretical frameworks that better explain existing evidence
Demonstrate logical inconsistencies in accepted theories
Reveal previously unrecognized patterns within accumulated data
Generate testable predictions that distinguish competing theoretical frameworks
Provide mathematical rigor in theoretical development
Challenge established consensus when evidence supports alternative interpretations
Rather than seeking artificial balance between competing theories, superior reviews should pursue theoretical truth through rigorous logical analysis and evidence evaluation.
The False Balance Problem in Scientific Reviews
The contemporary demand for "balanced" reviews often creates false equivalence between well-supported theoretical frameworks and those lacking empirical foundation. When overwhelming evidence supports one theoretical position while another relies primarily on tradition or consensus, demanding balance becomes anti-scientific.
As our analysis of the wave mechanics versus impedance matching controversy demonstrates, true scientific reviews must evaluate theoretical frameworks based on logical consistency and empirical adequacy rather than institutional acceptance or consensus status.
Conclusion: Elevating Review Articles to Their Proper Status
Review articles represent the pinnacle of scientific achievement when properly conceived as theoretical innovation rather than literature compilation. The greatest advances in human understanding have emerged from comprehensive theoretical syntheses that revealed unifying principles within existing knowledge.
Scientific progress depends on theoretical reviews that challenge established paradigms, identify logical inconsistencies, and propose superior theoretical frameworks. Rather than accepting the contemporary relegation of reviews to balanced summaries, the scientific community should recognize and reward review work that advances theoretical understanding.
The wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption exemplifies this approach—using rigorous theoretical analysis to reveal fundamental flaws in established impedance matching theory while proposing a superior theoretical framework based on established principles from transmission line theory. Such work represents genuine review excellence: theoretical innovation that transforms understanding within an established field.
Scientific journals should embrace this vision of review articles as vehicles for theoretical advancement rather than mere literature compilation, recognizing that the highest form of scientific contribution often involves theoretical synthesis rather than experimental data collection.
Only by restoring review articles to their proper status as theoretical innovation can the scientific community fully realize their potential for advancing human understanding and driving genuine scientific progress.
References:
1. Liu, Yue, "Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research" (2025), SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5379953
2. Liu, Yue, "The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research" (2025), SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5376778
3. Liu, Yue, "Rethinking 'Balanced View' in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories" (2025), https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/rethinking-balanced-view-in-scientific
Appendix
The Authority Paradox: How Modern Journals Manipulate Impact Through Meaningless Reviews
The Impact Factor Game: Authority Without Insight
Contemporary scientific publishing has devolved into a sophisticated system of impact factor manipulation that prioritizes institutional prestige over genuine theoretical advancement. Modern journals systematically commission established academic authorities to write reviews that lack genuine insights, serving primarily to generate citations and inflate impact metrics rather than advance scientific understanding. These authority-driven reviews typically offer comprehensive literature compilations without challenging existing paradigms or revealing new theoretical frameworks.
The irony is profound: the most valuable theoretical reviews—those that genuinely advance scientific understanding—often emerge from unknown researchers challenging mainstream theoretical frameworks, not from established authorities defending orthodox positions. The wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption exemplifies this pattern perfectly, where paradigm-changing insights originated from researchers outside the mainstream electromagnetic materials establishment, while established authorities continue defending theoretically flawed impedance matching paradigms.
The False Authority of Established Voices
Scientific progress becomes possible precisely because no authority remains permanently authoritative. As Max Planck observed, "Science advances one funeral at a time"—a principle that recognizes how institutional authority often impedes rather than facilitates theoretical advancement. The absence of permanent scientific authority creates space for revolutionary theoretical frameworks to emerge from unexpected sources.
Research on the replication crisis and statistical bias in scientific literature demonstrates how authority-based publishing systematically favors research findings that support established paradigms, even when such findings prove ultimately false. The academic publishing system rewards conformity to established theoretical frameworks while marginalizing genuinely innovative theoretical work that challenges orthodox assumptions.
The Reluctance to Challenge Authority: Academic Silence and Conformity
Academic publishing exhibits systematic bias against criticism of majority positions, particularly when such criticism originates from researchers lacking institutional prestige. The reluctance to criticize established authorities creates an environment where theoretical errors persist indefinitely, protected by institutional inertia rather than validated by empirical evidence or logical consistency.
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
This authority-worship directly contradicts the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry, which depend on constant critical evaluation of existing theoretical frameworks regardless of their institutional support or consensus status. When journals prioritize the reputation of authors over the quality of theoretical arguments, scientific progress inevitably stagnates.
Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill? The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress
The Wave Mechanics Case Study: Authority vs. Innovation
The wave mechanics theory controversy provides a perfect illustration of how modern journals apply double standards based on authority rather than scientific merit. When challenging manuscripts present paradigm-changing theoretical frameworks, journals invoke "balanced view" requirements to justify rejection. However, when established authorities publish reviews defending mainstream impedance matching theory without acknowledging alternative frameworks, the same journals abandon their "balanced view" standards entirely.
Progress in Materials Science exemplifies this hypocrisy: the journal rejected our comprehensive theoretical analysis citing lack of "balanced view," yet routinely publishes reviews by established authorities that defend impedance matching theory without mentioning contradictory evidence or alternative theoretical frameworks. This represents editorial bias disguised as editorial standards—applying different criteria based on author authority rather than scientific content.
The Impact Factor Manipulation Strategy
Modern journals exploit established authorities to generate high-citation reviews that boost impact factors without advancing scientific knowledge. The strategy involves:
1. Commissioning reviews from prestigious researchers whose institutional affiliations guarantee extensive citation
2. Avoiding controversial theoretical topics that might challenge established paradigms
3. Publishing comprehensive literature surveys without theoretical innovation or critical analysis
4. Rejecting paradigm-challenging work regardless of scientific merit to avoid controversy
This system transforms scientific publishing from a mechanism for advancing knowledge into a citation-generating enterprise that prioritizes metrics over scientific understanding.
The Real Value of Unknown Innovators
History demonstrates that revolutionary theoretical advances typically originate from researchers outside established authority structures:
Darwin developed evolutionary theory despite lacking formal biological training
Einstein formulated relativity while working as a patent clerk
McClintock discovered genetic transposition despite facing decades of scientific establishment opposition
Marshall and Warren proved bacterial causation of peptic ulcers against overwhelming medical consensus
These examples illustrate how genuine theoretical innovation often requires independence from established authority structures that have vested interests in maintaining orthodox theoretical frameworks.
The Authority-Innovation Inverse Relationship
A fundamental inverse relationship exists between institutional authority and theoretical innovation: established authorities have professional incentives to defend existing paradigms that established their reputations, while theoretical innovation often requires challenging precisely those established frameworks.
Journals that prioritize authority over innovation inevitably become conservative institutions that impede rather than facilitate scientific progress. The wave mechanics controversy demonstrates how this dynamic operates in contemporary publishing: established electromagnetic materials researchers avoid engaging with paradigm-challenging evidence, while journals protect these authorities by rejecting critical theoretical analyses.
Breaking the Authority Cycle
Genuine scientific progress requires editorial policies that evaluate theoretical contributions based on logical rigor and empirical adequacy rather than author prestige or institutional affiliation. Journals should:
Apply consistent standards regardless of author authority
Reward theoretical innovation over literature compilation
Encourage paradigm-challenging research rather than protecting established frameworks
Evaluate arguments based on scientific merit rather than consensus status
The current system, which rewards authority-based reviews while suppressing innovative theoretical work, fundamentally contradicts the scientific enterprise's core mission of advancing human understanding through rigorous theoretical analysis and empirical validation.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Reviews for Scientific Progress
The contemporary academic publishing system has transformed review articles from vehicles for theoretical advancement into tools for impact factor manipulation and authority reinforcement. This transformation directly undermines scientific progress by protecting established theoretical frameworks from critical examination while marginalizing genuinely innovative theoretical contributions.
True scientific reviews should emerge from theoretical insight rather than institutional authority, challenging established paradigms when evidence supports alternative frameworks. Only by abandoning the authority-worship that characterizes contemporary publishing can scientific journals fulfill their proper function of advancing human knowledge rather than protecting established orthodoxies.
The wave mechanics theory case demonstrates both the problem and its solution: rigorous theoretical analysis can reveal fundamental flaws in established paradigms, but only if journals possess the intellectual courage to evaluate such work based on scientific merit rather than deferring to established authority. Scientific progress depends on theoretical innovation, not authority preservation.
Additional References:
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" (2025),
Yue Liu, "The Reluctance to Criticize the Errors of the Majority: Authority, Conformity, and Academic Silence in Scholarly Discourse" (2025), Preprints.org, DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.2515.v1
"Planck's Principle," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle
Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories
Reviews
Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB. Review: The handedness structure of octahedral metal complexes with chelating ligands. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2014 , 260 : 37-64.
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew MGB. Review: Comparison of calculations for interplanar distances in a crystal lattice. Crystallography Reviews 2017 , 23(4) : 252-301.
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew MGB. Review: Clarifications of concepts concerning interplanar spacing in crystals with reference to recent publications. SN Applied Sciences 2020 , 2(4) : 755.
Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew Review: Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections A focused review, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2025, 64(7), 3635–3650, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04544 ; Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film and Providing Corrections: A Focused Review, Qeios, preprin, 2024-07-01, Supplementary data, Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB, [Commentary] Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935], Qeios, 2024, Supplementary Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB, Corrections of common errors in current theories of microwave absorption caused by confusing film and material, Qeios, 2024/02/10, preprint, https://doi.org/10.32388/QQ1MFF; Corrections of Common Errors Associated with the Confusion between Film and Material in Current Theories of Microwave Absorption. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4797207 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4797207
Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Review: 膜微波吸收研究在波动力学理论方向的新进展, 分子科学学报(英文版, Journal of Molecular Science), 2024, 40(198-04), 300 -305; Review of Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption by Film, Qeios, Preprint, 2024-07-04, Supplementary data
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew. Review：Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films: a short review, Optics and Laser Technology, 2024, 178, 111211 （The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 1: A short review, Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, scite）