Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies

Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories

Preprint: Redefining Review Articles: Beyond Balance Toward Theoretical Innovation

Related preprint:

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:2508.06522v2, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522

2025年08月18日 19:07 (星期一)

Ms. Ref. No.: PMS-D-25-00583
Title: Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption
Progress in Materials Science

Dear Prof. Yue Liu,

Thank you for submitting your paper to Progress in Materials Science. Progress in Materials Science publishes extensive and authoritative review articles that give a balanced view of a particular field, including the work of all major groups worldwide. It is appreciated that your submission aims to clarify a contentious issue in microwave materials. But as your paper seems to address a specific controversy, it does not qualify as a review paper that would be suitable for our journal. I regret that we cannot accept your paper for further processing.

We appreciate your thinking of Progress in Materials Science.

Yours sincerely,

Eduard Arzt
Editor-in-Chief
Progress in Materials Science:

Response:

2025年08月19日 22:03 (星期二)

"Balanced View" and Editorial Orthodoxy

What constitutes controversy, and what defines a "balanced view"? True controversy exists only when proponents present substantive arguments (points 1, 2, 3) that opponents cannot refute, while opponents simultaneously offer compelling counterarguments (points 1, 2, 3) that proponents cannot dismiss—only then can one meaningfully discuss a "balanced view." It is erroneous to assume that holding a "balanced view" is inherently fair while rejecting it is extremist. Between a correct theory and an incorrect theory, no "balanced view" exists—as Galileo observed, "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Therefore, when editorial boards evaluate competing theories, they must first comprehend both frameworks and identify the specific points of contention before demanding a "balanced view"—editors cannot require the challenging party to adopt a "balanced view" without understanding the theories involved. The current situation reveals a fundamental asymmetry: the wave mechanics theory demonstrates that traditional impedance matching theory is flawed, showing that arguments supposedly supporting impedance matching actually constitute evidence against it, while providing specific reasons (1, 2, 3) why impedance matching theory is incorrect. However, impedance matching proponents continue their adherence without responding to these criticisms—this is not controversy, this is unscientific silence. Editorial boards do not demand "balanced view" from mainstream theory articles, yet use "balanced view" as justification to reject opposing manuscripts—simply because impedance matching theory is "accepted," editors assume it naturally possesses truth credentials without requiring self-defense. Acceptance does not equal truth; consensus is not an argument in scientific discussion—as demonstrated by decades-long scientific consensus on erroneous hypotheses throughout history, from peptic ulcer causation to numerous other examples where expert consensus proved fundamentally wrong.

-----------

Dear Prof. Eduard Arzt and Editorial Board,

Thank you for your response regarding manuscript PMS-D-25-00583. However, your rejection based on the claim that our work "does not qualify as a review paper" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of scientific controversy and the responsibility of scientific journals in advancing knowledge.

Redefining What Constitutes Scientific Controversy and Review

Your rejection letter states that our paper "seems to address a specific controversy" and therefore does not qualify as a balanced review. This assessment reflects a profound common misunderstanding of what constitutes legitimate scientific controversy versus paradigm-challenging theoretical advancement. The wave mechanics theory represents a comprehensive theoretical framework supported by over 35 peer-reviewed publications across multiple high-impact journals including Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research (2025), Journal of Applied Physics (2023), Optics and Laser Technology (2024), and Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (2024).

The False "Balanced View" Paradigm

As documented extensively in our recent preprint (arXiv:2508.06522v2), between a correct theory and an incorrect theory, no "balanced view" exists. True scientific controversy requires both sides to present substantive arguments that the other cannot refute. However, the current situation reveals a fundamental asymmetry: we have demonstrated specific logical flaws in impedance matching theory, shown that experimental evidence supporting it actually refutes it, and provided rigorous theoretical foundations based on transmission line theory—yet the impedance matching community has offered no scientific rebuttals, only silence.

This is not controversy; this is institutional resistance to paradigm-changing evidence, as documented in our comprehensive analysis of editorial orthodoxy (PsyArXiv Preprints, doi:10.31234/osf.io/m93bj). Journals' demand for "balanced view" when applied asymmetrically—not requiring mainstream theories to defend themselves while rejecting challenges to them—exemplifies the very problem we document.

The Severity of Current Academic Problems

Despite extensive peer-reviewed publications demonstrating fundamental flaws in impedance matching theory, numerous journals continue to "play it safe" by treating established theories as truth without requiring scientific justification, refusing to process manuscripts that challenge orthodoxy. This represents what Harvard researchers identified in scientific misconduct cases: "some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long… experts were just too timid to take a stand" (New York Times, October 16, 2018).

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/

Your editorial decision exemplifies this systemic problem—protecting established theories not based on scientific merit but on institutional inertia and face-saving measures for researchers unwilling to abandon traditional but incorrect frameworks.

What Progress in Materials Science's "Balanced Review" Actually Means

Journals claim to publish "balanced view" reviews of particular fields. However, continuing to publish impedance matching theory articles while rejecting critical analyses constitutes profound editorial bias, not balance. The wave mechanics theory is grounded in established transmission line theory—accepted across multiple engineering disciplines—while impedance matching theory, despite claiming transmission line foundations, actually violates these principles.

As demonstrated in sections 2.4-2.6 and the final paragraph of section 3 in our arXiv manuscript (2508.06522v2), along with our statement "Film and material require separate theories to describe microwave absorption" in the Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research graphical abstract (2025, 64(7), 3635–3650), the wave mechanics theory represents genuine theoretical advancement, not mere controversy.

Historical Precedent and Editorial Responsibility

Scientific history demonstrates that consensus is not an argument in scientific discussion; only experimental evidence matters. As documented extensively:

• Decades-long consensus supported incorrect peptic ulcer causation theories until Barry Marshall and Robin Warren's bacterial hypothesis (Nobel Prize 2005)

• Radiation safety consensus has been challenged by radiation oncologists with conflicting interests

• Climate change consensus was artificially created through false balance in media coverage

The same institutional resistance that delayed recognition of revolutionary theories throughout history is now being documented in real-time through our case study. Our preprints serve as historical record of how prestigious journals—regardless of reputation—prevent disruptive theoretical publication.

The Real Issue: New Theoretical Development

This wave mechanics theory represents new development of microwave theory in the field of microwave absorption materials, as clearly demonstrated in our comprehensive theoretical framework. The theory reveals that devices (films) fundamentally differ from materials in their electromagnetic behavior—explaining why device engineering remains essential for technological advancement.

Your characterization of this as "specific controversy" rather than theoretical advancement reflects institutional bias toward protecting established paradigms rather than advancing scientific knowledge. Real controversy would require impedance matching proponents to provide scientific rebuttals—their silence indicates not controversy but theoretical inadequacy.

The False Balance Problem

Your editorial approach exemplifies what researchers term "false balance"—treating unequal positions as equivalent. When overwhelming evidence supports one theoretical framework while another lacks empirical foundation, demanding "balance" becomes anti-scientific. As noted in authoritative analyses: "If one position is buttressed by an overwhelming weight of evidence while another is bereft of empirical support, it is profoundly wrong-headed" to demand equal treatment.

Conclusion and Call for Editorial Integrity

Progress in Materials Science has the opportunity to demonstrate genuine scientific leadership by publishing paradigm-advancing theoretical work rather than perpetuating institutional orthodoxy. Our comprehensive analysis addresses fundamental questions about:

• Theoretical consistency in electromagnetic absorption

• Proper application of transmission line theory to film configurations

• The distinction between device and material properties

• Institutional barriers to scientific progress

• Citation patterns revealing community response to paradigm challenges

This represents exactly the type of authoritative, comprehensive review that advances materials science understanding—unless your journal's definition of "balanced review" means "protecting established theories from scientific scrutiny."

Evaluation of disruptive manuscript should be based on scientific merit rather than institutional comfort with orthodoxy. Science advances through evidence and logical consistency, not consensus protection. Your journal's response to this submission will be documented as part of the historical record of how scientific institutions respond to paradigm-challenging evidence.

The wave mechanics theory will ultimately be validated through experimental verification and theoretical consistency—the question is whether Progress in Materials Science will be part of advancing scientific knowledge or preserving institutional orthodoxy.

Sincerely,

Yue Liu,

Shenyang Normal Universituand

Supporting Documentation:

arXiv:2508.06522v2 - Comprehensive theoretical analysis

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2025, 64(7), 3635–3650

---

Analysis of Materials Today Physics Rejection Letter

Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection

Quick Decisions, Conventional Outcomes: How Rapid Editorial Processes Marginalize Disruptive Innovation

The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation

---

Correction is courageous

Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility

Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self-correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction

Cultures of Trial and Error: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers in Science Correction

A toast to the error detectors

---

Multiple preprints documenting institutional resistance patterns：

Liu, Yue, The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation, 2025, PsyArXiv Preprints, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m93bj_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

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

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

Why Low-Quality Articles Are So Prevalent

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

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

2025年08月31日 00:53 (星期日)

Dear Prof. Yue Liu,

Thank you for your reply to my decision letter concerning manuscript D-25-00583. Your letter has been studied carefully. However, I cannot find a valid argument that would justify reversing the original “reject” decision.

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.

I regret that I cannot give you a better response.

Best regards,

Eduard Arzt

Editor-in-Chief

Progress in Materials Science

---

Energy Can’t Be Created or Destroyed! Why?

Why Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. Explained Simply!

2025年08月31日 02:02 (星期日)

Dear Prof. Arzt,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do not intend to challenge your editorial decision but feel compelled to respond and clarify my scientific perspective.

Certain foundational scientific principles—such as conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, classical electromagnetism, and the theoretical framework of magnetism—are fundamentally correct and universally accepted. Conversely, theories such as geocentrism, perpetual motion machines, and phlogiston are unequivocally wrong. Similarly, in our manuscripts, we have demonstrated that the impedance matching theory of microwave absorption is fundamentally flawed.

To date, no mainstream scientists have provided scientifically rigorous rebuttals that effectively counter our arguments. I respectfully invite you to review our comprehensive analysis published here:
Preprint: 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, arXiv:2508.06522v3 (2025)
DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522.

Should you disagree with our conclusions, I would welcome an academic discussion to see which evidence withstands critical scrutiny.

The unwillingness of significant portions of the scientific community to engage with or rebut opposing arguments reveals a broader issue we describe as Cargo Cult Science. It is important to emphasize that academic rigor requires proper scientific argumentation, and the mere status of the impedance matching theory as a "mainstream" consensus does not alone constitute a valid scientific argument.

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion. I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,
Prof. Yue Liu

I would also like to provide the following information if you would like to reference:

Why are most articles published in current journals garbage:

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5392646

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202507.0015/v2

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06522v3

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

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v2

---

1. 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

2. 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

3. Redefining Review Articles: Beyond Balance Toward Theoretical Innovation