Supplementary Materials
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
Abstract
“It is the unsaid rule in publication to systematically avoid criticizing established figures, journals, and misconducts committed by the majority. To ensure self-correcting rather than maintaining the academic silence that protects established paradigms, the scientific community must systematically document cases where criticism of established work faces resistance, as such documentation "is not good to make improvement" when it remains hidden. Creating public databases of editorial bias cases, reviewer misconduct, and institutional resistance to error correction would help the community learn from these problems.”
“… revealing systematic patterns in how mainstream theory challenges are evaluated, and ethical guidelines, the analysis highlights systemic flaws in current peer review processes. The study demonstrates how the same manuscript can receive contradictory evaluations from multiple reviewers, with some acknowledging the validity of the criticism while others defend established theories without addressing the mathematical arguments presented.”
“The Chemical Engineering Journal case provides extraordinary documentation of how peer review operates when confronted with fundamental challenges to established theories. The journal assigned eight reviewers to evaluate a manuscript challenging mainstream microwave absorption theory - an unusually high number that suggests the controversial nature of the work."
the manuscript was ultimately rejected with the editor's statement that "the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience" in a physics journal.
This case exemplifies how journals compartmentalize scientific disciplines to avoid engaging with fundamental theoretical challenges, effectively protecting mainstream paradigms by deflecting criticism to "more appropriate" venues.
“Chemical Engineering Journal's decision to assign eight reviewers represents an unusual acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance and controversial nature. Standard practice typically involves 2-3 reviewers. The high reviewer count suggests editorial recognition that the manuscript raised fundamental questions requiring broad expert input.“
Executive Editor Dr. Theophilos Ioannides' response reveals a systematic deflection strategy: "My opinion is that your work would be more suitable for a physics journal where the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience".
This response demonstrates how journals avoid engaging with fundamental theoretical challenges by:
1. Acknowledging the work constitutes legitimate "debate"
2. Deflecting to other disciplines rather than engaging with the arguments8
3. Protecting established paradigms through jurisdictional boundaries
The eight reviewer responses reveal systematic bias patterns:
This pattern demonstrates that manuscript evaluation depends more on reviewers' theoretical commitments than scientific merit.
The Chemical Engineering Journal rejection, while not using the explicit language "correctness is not enough," demonstrates the same underlying problem through reviewer patterns. Reviewer #9 stated: "Although the reasoning seems flawless and there is also support from previous work... the views are relatively new, while the mainstream theory has existed for a long time".
“This reveals the systematic devaluation of correctness in favor of established consensus. Mathematical rigor becomes secondary to theoretical familiarity and disciplinary comfort.”
“Multiple reviewers demonstrated bias against theoretical innovation”
“These patterns reveal how peer review systematically discriminates against innovative theoretical work, requiring higher standards of proof than established theories.“
“The Chemical Engineering Journal case demonstrates a fundamental paradox: when journals recognize manuscript importance through extensive reviewer assignment, they simultaneously create conditions for rejection through reviewer diversity. The more reviewers assigned, the higher the probability that some will defend mainstream paradigms regardless of mathematical merit.“
The editorial deflection to "physics journals" reveals how disciplinary boundaries protect established theories. By claiming theoretical challenges belong in other fields, journals avoid engaging with fundamental critiques while maintaining the appearance of reasonable editorial judgment.
“Treating supportive and hostile reviewer comments as equivalent creates false balance. When Reviewer #1 provides detailed mathematical support and Reviewer #10 makes unsubstantiated claims, editorial decisions should weight mathematical rigor more heavily than defensive assertions.“
The Chemical Engineering Journal case documents a systematic mechanism for suppressing theoretical innovation:
1. Assign multiple reviewers to controversial work
2. Weight defensive responses equally with supportive analysis
3. Use disciplinary boundaries to deflect rather than engage
4. Maintain editorial neutrality while protecting established paradigms
This mechanism allows journals to appear fair while systematically rejecting theoretical challenges.
“The reviewer patterns exemplify Feynman's cargo cult science warning. Reviewers follow the forms of scientific evaluation (checking equations, requesting evidence) while missing the essential element of scientific integrity - honestly engaging with contradictory evidence and theoretical challenges.“
“Journals should implement weighted evaluation systems that prioritize mathematical rigor over consensus defense. When reviewers provide detailed mathematical support versus unsubstantiated criticism, editorial decisions should reflect this qualitative difference.“
“Rather than deflecting theoretical challenges to other disciplines, journals should engage with fundamental critiques that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Microwave absorption theory involves physics, engineering, and material science - rejecting on disciplinary grounds avoids necessary scientific discourse.“
“Journals should establish explicit protocols protecting theoretical innovation from consensus bias. When established theories face mathematical challenge, the burden of proof should shift to defending the mainstream position rather than requiring extraordinary evidence from challengers.“
“The Chemical Engineering Journal case provides exceptional documentation of how peer review operates when confronted with fundamental theoretical challenges. The assignment of eight reviewers, their contradictory evaluations, and the ultimate editorial deflection reveal systematic mechanisms for protecting established paradigms while maintaining the appearance of fair evaluation.“
The case demonstrates that when reviewers engage seriously with mathematical arguments (Reviewers #1, #4), they often recognize the validity of challenges to mainstream theories. However, when reviewers respond defensively (Reviewers #2, #10) or apply prudential skepticism (Reviewer #3), they effectively protect established theories from rigorous examination.
“Most significantly, the editorial decision to deflect the work to "physics journals" rather than engage with the theoretical arguments reveals how disciplinary boundaries serve to protect established paradigms. This represents a fundamental corruption of scientific discourse - theories should be evaluated based on mathematical rigor and empirical validity, not disciplinary comfort or theoretical familiarity.“
The documented reviewer bias patterns - from supportive recognition to defensive dismissal - demonstrate that manuscript evaluation depends more on reviewers' theoretical commitments than scientific merit. This violates the fundamental principle that scientific truth should be evaluated independently of consensus opinion.
The Chemical Engineering Journal case thus provides concrete evidence supporting William Penn's principle that "right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." When mathematical arguments are sound but theoretically challenging, they deserve engagement rather than deflection, regardless of how many reviewers prefer familiar paradigms.
“The successful publication in Non-Metallic Material Science following Chemical Engineering Journal's rejection demonstrates that scientifically sound theoretical challenges can find appropriate venues despite initial editorial resistance. However, the broader pattern revealed by the ACS Applied Electronic Materials correspondence and documented academic silence culture shows systematic problems in how scientific publishing handles paradigm-challenging work.“
Simine Vazire's call for "A toast to the error detectors" provides essential guidance for reforming academic culture. We must move beyond the implicit rule that "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" toward a culture that celebrates and rewards those who identify errors and challenge established theories.
A toast to the error detectors
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03909-2
PMID: 31889172
“The systematic avoidance of criticizing established figures, journals, and majority-supported misconduct creates an environment where cargo cult science flourishes. The lack of documentation of such problems prevents improvement and perpetuates systemic failures that undermine scientific progress”
“The case of microwave absorption theory research demonstrates both the problems and potential solutions. While established journals may reject challenging work through preliminary screening and editorial deflection, alternative venues can provide platforms for theoretical innovation. However, broader cultural change is needed to ensure that error detection and theoretical criticism are valued rather than marginalized”
“The ultimate goal must be creating academic environments where Feynman's principles of scientific integrity guide evaluation of theoretical challenges, where mathematical rigor trumps paradigm conformity, and where those who ensure science is self-correcting receive recognition rather than professional punishment. Only through such fundamental cultural change can the scientific enterprise fulfill its mission of advancing human knowledge through honest inquiry and rigorous self-correction.”
"Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman
https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
Planck's principle - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Colloquially, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".
Planck's quote has been used by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Moran Cerf and others to argue scientific revolutions are non-rational, rather than spread through "mere force of truth and fact".
"It is of interest that even in the objective world of science man's mind is not more malleable than in the habit-bound world of everyday life. Max Planck maintained that a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents, but because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Here, too, you need forty years in the desert"