The Academic Publishing Hierarchy
A Commentary on Qeios' Rejection and the Suppression of Non-Mainstream Scholarship
The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing
Commentary on Qeios Rejection: Documenting the Systematic Suppression of Paradigm-Challenging Research
Revisiting the Qeios Rejection of a Preprint on Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption
The Gamification of Academic Publishing: How Artificial Limits Stifle Innovation and Critical Discourse
Publication Outlets for Sharp Criticism of Academia
Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing
2025年08月22日 17:49 (星期五)
Dear Yue,
thank you very much for your thoughtful message and for sharing the context behind your recent series of submissions. We truly value the commitment and long-standing perspective you bring, and we understand your wish to share your ideas steadily and openly.
At the same time, we would like to kindly reiterate that our platform strongly discourages multiple submissions in very close succession. This is not a reflection on the quality of your work, but rather a matter of ensuring that each article has the chance to receive the attention it deserves, and that the overall rhythm of publication on Qeios remains balanced. If your top priority is to post many works rapidly, there are indeed several other preprint servers that may be a better fit for that approach. That said, we would be very glad to continue hosting your contributions here, provided they align with our policies on pacing and posting.
In the meantime, we have also taken a look at your most recent submission. Unfortunately, this manuscript has not passed our pre-posting checks, and we are unable to proceed with its posting at this time.
Due to the high volume of submissions we receive every day, we regret that we are unable to provide more detailed feedback on this occasion. However, we can share that the main issue is that the commentary’s central argument appears to rely heavily on non-scholarly and non-academic sources (e.g. Wikipedia, Reddit, blogs, news articles, and self-citations to preprints and Substack posts), which undermines its academic rigor. In addition, several exaggerated claims are presented without engagement with the established scholarly literature, and the reference list shows inconsistencies in formatting and completeness.
You are, of course, free to submit this manuscript for consideration to any other journal or platform of your choice. Given the nature of the manuscript, however, we believe it might be better suited for formats such as a blog post or platforms like Medium.com or Substack, where thoughtful and timely analyses can reach a wide and engaged audience without the constraints of formal academic publishing. What do you think? :)
Thank you again so much for considering Qeios for your research, Yue.
Kindest regards,
Qeios Team
—
Qeios
9 Sydney Mews, SW3 6HW, London, UK
Follow at
The Academic Publishing Hierarchy: A Commentary on Qeios' Rejection and the Suppression of Non-Mainstream Scholarship
The rejection letter from Qeios reveals a troubling manifestation of academic publishing's hierarchical prejudices and systematic suppression of non-mainstream perspectives. The editorial team's criticism that the commentary "relies heavily on non-scholarly and non-academic sources (e.g. Wikipedia, Reddit, blogs, news articles, and self-citations to preprints and Substack posts)" exposes the deeply entrenched academic caste system where peer-reviewed journals look down upon preprints, and preprints, in turn, dismiss online blogs and alternative platforms.
The Academic Caste System and Its Gatekeeping Function
This hierarchical disdain serves a clear gatekeeping function: articles presenting non-mainstream viewpoints are forced into progressively lower-tier publication venues, and often cannot find publication outlets at all.
Publication Outlets for Sharp Criticism of Academia
High-impact journals, protected by their prestigious impact factors, continue to publish substantial amounts of garbage research that conforms to mainstream theories, yet these are celebrated as significant contributions simply due to their institutional validation. Meanwhile, preprints that challenge established paradigms are dismissed as problematic when published frequently, and their authors are subjected to arbitrary spacing requirements that transform academic research into a mechanized game.
The Suppression Mechanism: From Journals to Online Platforms
The enforcement of publication intervals represents the gamification of academic research, where mechanical rules dictate that a scholar can only publish a limited number of articles per year—anything beyond this threshold is automatically labeled as "water-filling" publications. This system is specifically designed to suppress articles that diverge from mainstream viewpoints. The irony is profound: true masters become masters precisely because of their deep insights and the abundance of non-mainstream perspectives they generate. Restricting publication frequency is tantamount to preventing the emergence of intellectual giants.
The situation becomes even more egregious when mainstream scholars attempt to silence dissenting voices not only in traditional journals but also on online platforms. As documented in previous cases, when researchers challenge fundamental theories like relativity, they are told by journal editors: "PRA won't publish this, you can try other journals, but personally, I think complaining online is inadvisable."
The Gamification of Academic Publishing: How Artificial Limits Stifle Innovation and Critical Discourse
“PRA不发表，你可以选择其它杂志，个人认为，在网络上喊冤的方式不可取。”
Similarly, manuscript rejections cite the frequency of an author's publications on controversial topics as grounds for dismissal: "the authors have published numerous articles on this very subject in recent years."
Manuscript Number: MAGMA-D-24-01056
“I do not find it suitable for a physics journal, especially because the authors have published numerous articles on this very subject in recent years, including in the JMMM.”
“In the opinion of this reviewer, writing a comment on the erroneous paper would be more effective and more appropriate way of correcting a mistake than addressing this problem again and again in numerous publications.”
The Fundamental Contradiction
What emerges is a systematic contradiction: mainstream scholars are deeply antagonistic toward the publication of anti-mainstream viewpoints, yet they simultaneously demand that such viewpoints meet the same rigorous standards as mainstream research. This creates an impossible double bind—challenging ideas are excluded from prestigious venues for being too radical, then criticized in alternative venues for lacking academic rigor when they cite accessible sources or self-reference their previous work that couldn't find mainstream publication.
Publication Outlets for Sharp Criticism of Academia
Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing
The Qeios rejection exemplifies this contradiction perfectly. While positioned as a more open preprint platform, it still enforces the same academic hierarchies and prejudices that plague traditional publishing. The suggestion that such work belongs on "platforms like Medium.com or Substack" reveals the ultimate goal: to banish critical perspectives to spaces where they can be easily dismissed as non-academic commentary, thereby protecting the mainstream academic ecosystem from serious intellectual challenge.
This systematic suppression ensures that transformative ideas remain marginalized, while conformist research continues to dominate prestigious venues, ultimately stifling scientific progress and perpetuating intellectual stagnation within the academic community.
Exposing Fundamental Misconceptions in Peer Review
A Critical Rebuttal to Systemic Reviewer and Editorial Errors in Microwave Absorption Research
Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection
Commentary: A Critical Review of Arguments Against Preprint
Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies