The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing
How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation
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
The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation
Yue Liu
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034, yueliusd@163.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730
Abstract
The current academic publishing system has increasingly prioritized mainstream appeal and broad readership over groundbreaking scientific innovation, creating systemic barriers for disruptive research while facilitating the publication of incremental work. This study analyzes recent evidence of editorial bias against paradigm-shifting research, examining how peer review processes and impact factor-driven incentives systematically favor conventional theories over revolutionary ideas. Through analysis of rejection patterns at major journals and the documented decline in disruptive research publication, we demonstrate that editorial decisions are primarily influenced by perceived broad interest rather than scientific merit or novelty. The findings reveal a troubling paradox: while genuinely innovative research struggles to find publication venues, incremental studies that confirm existing paradigms are readily accepted, leading to an overall decline in scientific disruptiveness. This editorial orthodoxy threatens long-term scientific progress by creating an environment where conformity is rewarded and intellectual risk-taking is penalized. We argue that the academic publishing ecosystem must undergo fundamental reform to restore its proper function as a facilitator of scientific advancement rather than a barrier to paradigmatic innovation.
Keywords: academic publishing, editorial bias, paradigm shift, peer review, impact factor, scientific innovation, publication bias, mainstream theory
Introduction
The academic publishing landscape has undergone a fundamental transformation that paradoxically rewards conformity while penalizing the very type of research that drives scientific progress1, 2. Recent evidence suggests that journals increasingly define research importance not by its potential to advance scientific understanding, but by its ability to generate "broad interest" and enhance citation metrics3-5. This shift represents a concerning departure from the foundational principles of scientific inquiry, where paradigm-challenging research should be valued over incremental contributions that merely confirm existing knowledge. 6-8
The systematic preference for mainstream theories over innovative approaches has created what can be characterized as an "editorial orthodoxy" – a publishing environment where editorial decisions are guided more by commercial considerations and risk aversion than by scientific merit. This orthodoxy manifests in multiple ways: through high desk rejection rates that filter out unconventional research before peer review9, through impact factor-driven incentives that favor safe, citable work over groundbreaking discoveries, and through peer review systems that systematically bias against novel approaches. 2, 6, 10-14
The Decline of Disruptive Innovation in Academic Research
Multiple studies have documented a concerning trend toward decreased disruptiveness in published scientific research15, 16. Park et al. (2023) demonstrated that across multiple disciplines, papers show decreased disruptive potential, with this phenomenon being particularly pronounced in fields experiencing rapid growth in publication volume. The decline manifests in reduced citation impact for disruptive papers relative to incremental research, journal bias favoring consolidating rather than disruptive research, and increased risk aversion among researchers who avoid high-risk, high-reward research questions. 2, 17, 18
This trend is particularly troubling given that disruptive innovations in science are experiencing a systematic decline precisely when they are most needed. Research indicates that papers with disruptive potential receive fewer citations and struggle to gain recognition in an increasingly crowded and competitive publishing environment. The proliferation of "paper mills" and commercial entities producing fabricated or low-quality research has created a substantial market for substandard scholarly content, while genuinely innovative research struggles to find appropriate platforms. 2, 18
Impact Factor Tyranny and Broad Appeal Bias
The journal impact factor (JIF) has evolved from its original purpose as a librarian's tool into a primary determinant of research value, despite extensive criticism of its validity as a measure of scientific quality. The pursuit of high impact factors has created perverse incentives where journals prioritize papers likely to generate citations over those that might fundamentally advance knowledge but challenge existing paradigms. 6, 8, 10, 19
This system creates a fundamental misalignment between scientific merit and market incentives. Commercial publishers have successfully created business models that prioritize quantity over quality, leading to a situation where journals with genuine scholarly intentions often fail financially while those publishing questionable content achieve higher impact factors and greater market success2. The result is an environment where breakthrough discoveries may remain unrecognized for years while incremental research receives immediate attention and citation.
The emphasis on "broad interest" as a criterion for publication has effectively transformed journals from venues for scientific discourse into entertainment platforms seeking to maximize readership. This shift is evidenced in the standard rejection letters that cite lack of "general interest" rather than methodological flaws or insufficient novelty as reasons for rejection. Such editorial policies effectively filter out specialized research that might not appeal to a general audience but could be crucial for advancing specific scientific fields. 8, 13, 20
Systematic Barriers to Paradigmatic Innovation
Desk Rejection Patterns
Analysis of desk rejection rates reveals a troubling pattern where innovative research faces systematic barriers before reaching peer review. Estimates show that 30-70% of manuscripts submitted to major academic journals are desk rejected, with higher rates at prestigious venues. These decisions, made solely by editors without external review, often eliminate unconventional research that challenges existing paradigms.12, 13, 21
The case studies presented in the Appendix demonstrate this pattern clearly. Manuscripts challenging mainstream theories in microwave absorption and wave mechanics theory were systematically rejected by multiple high-impact journals without peer review [Appendix]. The rejection letters consistently cited "scope" and "broad interest" concerns rather than methodological problems, suggesting that editorial decisions were based on conformity to existing paradigms rather than scientific rigor.
Peer Review Bias Against Innovation
Research has consistently documented bias against novel research within peer review systems. However, recent studies suggest a more complex dynamic where the bias may be less about cognitive limitations and more about structural incentives that favor safe, incremental research. While some evidence suggests that peer reviewers may not systematically disfavor novelty, the overall system still creates barriers through delayed review times for unconventional work and higher standards of evidence for paradigm-challenging research.11, 14, 22-24
The peer review process has become increasingly conservative, with reviewers often declining to review innovative manuscripts or providing superficial reviews that focus on methodological minutiae rather than conceptual contributions. This creates a system where innovative research faces longer review times and higher rejection rates, effectively discouraging paradigm-shifting work. 22, 24, 25
Status Bias and Institutional Favoritism
Recent research has revealed significant status bias in academic publishing, where manuscripts are evaluated based on author affiliations and previous publication records rather than solely on scientific merit. Studies show that reviewers recommend acceptance rates of over 20% when Nobel laureates are shown as authors, compared to less than 2% for unknown research associates submitting identical work. This bias creates additional barriers for innovative researchers who may not have established reputations within existing paradigms. 22, 24-26
The Innovation-Quality Paradox
A fundamental paradox has emerged where the most important scientific advances often appear unremarkable initially and may even be rejected by established journals. Meanwhile, incremental research that confirms existing knowledge receives immediate recognition and citation. This creates a system where high-impact journals favor safe, incremental research, innovative research is relegated to specialized or lower-ranked venues, citation-based metrics reinforce conservative publication patterns, and breakthrough discoveries may remain unrecognized for years. 2, 27
The case of papers that were ultimately recognized as groundbreaking but initially rejected exemplifies this paradox. Enrico Fermi's seminal paper on weak interaction was rejected from Nature for being "too removed from reality", while countless examples exist of paradigm-shifting work that struggled to find publication venues. Conversely, papers published after initial rejection often receive more citations than those accepted on first submission, suggesting that the review process may actually be filtering out higher-quality, more innovative work. 27-29
Implications for Scientific Progress
Long-term Consequences
The current publishing dynamics have serious implications for scientific advancement. The systematic bias against disruptive research slows scientific progress, knowledge fragmentation occurs as focus on incremental advances creates disconnected research silos, resource misallocation results from funding and attention flowing to safe rather than transformative research, and a credibility crisis emerges as the proliferation of low-quality research undermines public trust in science. 2
This system may be significantly slowing scientific progress and undermining the integrity of scholarly knowledge. The proliferation of paper mills and predatory publishing practices further exacerbates these problems, creating an environment where fraudulent research can achieve apparent legitimacy through manipulation of established metrics.2
The Need for Systemic Reform
Multiple stakeholders have called for fundamental reforms to the academic publishing system. Proposed solutions include developing alternative metrics that better capture research impact, implementing open access models that reduce financial barriers to high-quality publishing, encouraging editorial reform that prioritizes innovation over incrementalism, and modifying institutional reward systems to value quality over quantity. 2
The academic community cannot afford a publishing system that systematically discourages breakthrough research while rewarding mediocrity. In an era where scientific innovation is crucial for addressing global challenges, fundamental reform is necessary to ensure that academic publishing serves its proper function: facilitating the communication and advancement of human knowledge rather than serving as a barrier to scientific progress.2
Case Study Analysis: Systemic Rejection of Wave Mechanics Innovation
The rejection patterns documented in the Appendix provide a compelling case study of how the current system operates against paradigmatic innovation3-5. A series of manuscripts challenging mainstream theories in microwave absorption physics were systematically rejected by major journals including Nature, Science, Cognition, and multiple specialty physics journals [Appendix]. The rejection letters reveal several key patterns:
Scope-based rejections: Journals consistently rejected papers not for methodological flaws but for falling "outside the scope" of the publication, despite the research addressing fundamental questions in relevant fields [Appendix].
Broad interest criteria: Editorial decisions explicitly cited lack of "general interest" to the journal's "broad readership" rather than scientific merit [Appendix].
Pre-review filtering: Most rejections occurred without peer review, suggesting that innovative research is being filtered out by editorial gatekeepers before receiving scientific evaluation [Appendix].
Speed-versus-quality trade-offs: Journals cited the need for "quick decisions" as justification for rejecting innovative work that might require longer evaluation periods [Appendix].
These patterns demonstrate how the current system systematically excludes paradigm-challenging research while claiming to maintain scientific standards. The fact that some of this research was eventually published in mainstream journals and gained recognition suggests that the initial rejections were based on conformity bias rather than scientific quality [Appendix].
Recommendations for Reform
Editorial Policy Changes
Journals must adopt explicit policies that prioritize scientific innovation over broad appeal. This includes implementing blind review processes that evaluate research based on methodology and contribution rather than conformity to existing paradigms, establishing separate evaluation tracks for paradigm-challenging research that allow for longer review periods and specialized reviewers, and creating explicit quotas for innovative research to ensure that groundbreaking work receives publication opportunities.2
Metric Reform
The academic community must move beyond impact factor-based evaluation systems toward metrics that better capture scientific value. This includes developing disruption indices that measure how research challenges existing paradigms, implementing long-term citation tracking that evaluates research impact over decades rather than years, and creating quality-based metrics that assess methodological rigor rather than citation count.2, 6, 10
Institutional Changes
Universities and funding agencies must modify their evaluation criteria to reward paradigm-shifting research over incremental contributions. This includes providing career protection for researchers pursuing high-risk, innovative projects, creating funding mechanisms specifically for paradigm-challenging research, and establishing review processes that can properly evaluate unconventional approaches.2
Conclusion
The contemporary academic publishing system has created a paradoxical environment where the very type of research that drives scientific progress faces systematic barriers to publication, while incremental work that confirms existing knowledge receives ready acceptance. This editorial orthodoxy, driven by impact factor pursuit and broad appeal considerations, represents a fundamental betrayal of scientific principles and threatens long-term progress across all disciplines.
The evidence presented demonstrates that journals have effectively transformed from venues for scientific discourse into commercial enterprises prioritizing readership and citation metrics over paradigmatic innovation. This transformation has created perverse incentives where conformity is rewarded, intellectual risk-taking is penalized, and breakthrough discoveries struggle to find appropriate publication venues.
The implications extend far beyond academic publishing itself. By systematically discouraging innovative research while rewarding mediocrity, the current system may be significantly slowing scientific advancement and undermining the integrity of scholarly knowledge. In an era where scientific innovation is crucial for addressing global challenges, this represents not merely an academic problem but a threat to human progress itself.
Addressing this crisis requires comprehensive reform of academic publishing, including the development of new evaluation metrics that better capture research quality and innovation, institutional changes that prioritize scientific merit over publication quantity, and economic models that make high-quality publishing financially sustainable. Without such reforms, the academic publishing system will continue to serve as a barrier rather than a facilitator of scientific advancement.
The stakes could not be higher. The academic community must act decisively to restore publishing to its proper function: facilitating the communication and advancement of human knowledge rather than serving as a gatekeeper that protects orthodox thinking from paradigmatic challenge. Only through such reform can we ensure that science continues to fulfill its role as a driver of human understanding and progress.
Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection
Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility
Cultures of Trial and Error: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers in Science Correction
A toast to the error detectors
==================
Appendix
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22日 11:04 (星期五)
Manuscript Number: MATTOD-D-25-02436
Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption
Dear Professor Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Materials Today. After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it.
I hope you are successful in finding an alternative publication for your work. For alternative journals that may be more suitable for your manuscript, please refer to our Journal Finder (http://journalfinder.elsevier.com).
We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to Materials Today and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Kind Regards,
Jun Lou
Editor-in-Chief
Materials Today
Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection
The Expedited Rejection Pattern
The rejection letter from Materials Today Editor-in-Chief Jun Lou exemplifies a concerning trend in contemporary scientific publishing: the use of "scope" as a convenient shield to avoid engaging with paradigm-challenging research. The brevity and generic nature of this rejection—lacking any specific scientific evaluation or substantive reasoning—reveals an editorial approach that prioritizes institutional comfort over scientific inquiry.
The rejection occurred within days, indicating a desk rejection without peer review, despite the manuscript addressing fundamental theoretical issues in electromagnetic materials that directly fall within Materials Today's stated scope of "fundamental and applied research across all materials science disciplines—from incremental results to ground-breaking discoveries."
The Scope Contradiction
Materials Today explicitly claims to publish research "from incremental results to ground-breaking discoveries" and offers "multi- and inter-disciplinary platforms for collaboration and the cross-pollination of ideas to drive the field forward." Yet when presented with genuine paradigm-challenging work that could represent a "ground-breaking discovery" in electromagnetic materials theory, the journal immediately invokes "scope" as grounds for rejection.
This creates a fundamental contradiction: How can a journal simultaneously claim to welcome "ground-breaking discoveries" while rejecting manuscripts that challenge established theoretical frameworks? The wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption represents exactly the type of cross-disciplinary theoretical innovation that Materials Today claims to champion.
The Scope Fallacy in Scientific Publishing
The "scope" rejection has become a convenient mechanism for editors to avoid the intellectual responsibility of evaluating challenging scientific content. As documented in our comprehensive analysis of editorial orthodoxy (https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/the-editorial-orthodoxy-in-academic), journals routinely use scope as a blanket justification to reject paradigm-challenging work while simultaneously publishing incremental research within the same technical domain.
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
Materials Today regularly publishes articles on microwave absorption materials, electromagnetic properties of composites, and theoretical frameworks for materials design. The journal's own recent publications demonstrate clear scope overlap with our submission:
· Papers on "microwave absorption materials derived from metal-organic frameworks"
· Studies on "electromagnetic wave absorption materials"
· Research on "dielectric and magnetic loss mechanisms"
· Theoretical analyses of "impedance matching in absorbing materials"
If these topics fall within scope, how does a comprehensive theoretical analysis of microwave absorption mechanisms suddenly fall outside scope?
The Editorial Cowardice Problem
The rejection pattern reveals what can only be characterized as editorial cowardice masquerading as editorial discretion. Rather than engaging with potentially paradigm-changing content through rigorous peer review, journals increasingly opt for the safe path of protecting established orthodoxies through procedural rejection.
This approach represents a fundamental abdication of scientific responsibility. As Materials Today claims to address "many of the world's grand challenges," how can the journal fulfill this mission while systematically avoiding manuscripts that challenge the theoretical foundations underlying current technological limitations?
The Historical Context of Scope-Based Rejection
Scientific history is replete with examples of revolutionary discoveries being rejected on grounds of "scope" or "relevance." The wave mechanics theory case provides real-time documentation of how prestigious journals protect institutional orthodoxy at the expense of scientific advancement.
Continental drift theory, bacterial causation of peptic ulcers, and numerous other paradigm-shifting concepts faced similar "scope" rejections before eventual acceptance. The current pattern suggests that Materials Today prefers to remain on the comfortable side of scientific history rather than risk association with potentially revolutionary theoretical developments.
The False Nature of Editorial "Evaluation"
The claim that the manuscript underwent "careful evaluation" is demonstrably false given the speed and superficial nature of the rejection. Genuine evaluation would require:
· Assessment of the theoretical framework's logical consistency
· Analysis of the experimental evidence challenging impedance matching theory
· Consideration of the manuscript's implications for materials design
· Review of the extensive peer-reviewed literature supporting wave mechanics principles
None of these elements appear to have been considered, indicating that the "evaluation" consisted primarily of categorical rejection based on institutional bias rather than scientific merit.
The Systemic Problem in Materials Science Publishing
This rejection exemplifies broader systemic problems in materials science publishing that impede scientific progress:
1. Risk-averse editorial policies that favor incremental research over paradigm-changing discoveries
2. Institutional protection of established theories regardless of mounting contradictory evidence
3. Procedural mechanisms (scope, balance, novelty) used to avoid substantive scientific evaluation
4. Editorial boards increasingly disconnected from cutting-edge theoretical developments in their own fields
The Irony of "Journal Finder" Recommendations
The suggestion to use Elsevier's "Journal Finder" reveals the fundamental absurdity of the situation. The wave mechanics theory addresses electromagnetic materials, theoretical frameworks for absorption mechanisms, and practical design implications—all core topics within Materials Today's scope. What journal would be "more suitable" for comprehensive theoretical analysis of materials that Materials Today regularly features in incremental studies?
The Journal Finder recommendation essentially admits that Materials Today prefers superficial materials characterization over fundamental theoretical advancement—directly contradicting the journal's stated mission.
The Documentation Value
This rejection serves important historical documentation purposes, demonstrating how prestigious journals respond to paradigm-challenging science in real-time. Future historians of science will have extensive documentation of institutional resistance patterns, unlike previous paradigm shifts where such evidence was largely anecdotal.
Materials Today's rejection will be preserved as evidence of how a journal claiming to champion "ground-breaking discoveries" actually responded when presented with potentially revolutionary theoretical work.
The Broader Implications
This pattern of rejection has profound implications for scientific progress in materials science:
· Young researchers learn to avoid paradigm-challenging topics to ensure publication success
· Established theoretical frameworks become entrenched regardless of logical flaws
· Technological advancement slows due to reliance on discredited theoretical foundations
· Scientific integrity suffers as institutional politics override empirical evidence
Conclusion: The Choice for Scientific Leadership
Materials Today faced a choice between scientific leadership and institutional conformity—and chose conformity. The journal had the opportunity to demonstrate genuine commitment to "ground-breaking discoveries" by engaging with paradigm-challenging theoretical work through rigorous peer review.
Instead, the editorial decision represents exactly the type of institutional resistance that impedes scientific progress and maintains technological limitations based on theoretically flawed foundations.
Science advances through evidence-based evaluation of competing theoretical frameworks, not through procedural protection of established orthodoxies. Materials Today's rejection demonstrates that despite claims of welcoming innovation, the journal remains fundamentally committed to preserving the comfortable status quo rather than advancing materials science knowledge.
The wave mechanics theory will ultimately be validated through experimental verification and theoretical consistency—the only question is whether Materials Today will be remembered as a journal that advanced scientific understanding or one that protected institutional orthodoxy at the expense of discovery.
This rejection serves as a case study in how prestigious journals can simultaneously claim to champion innovation while systematically rejecting the very paradigm-changing work that drives genuine scientific progress.
=======
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:
"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).
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
Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility
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
The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing
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08日 21:47 (星期五)
08-Aug-2025
Dear Dr Liu,
This is regarding Manuscript ID MOP-25-0796 entitled "Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges" which you submitted to Microwave and Optical Technology Letters. The subject paper has been reviewed by the members of the Editorial Board and publication is not recommended.
I would like to point out that, to maintain a high technical standard of published material, we have to be very selective. To achieve our speed of publication, the reviewers are asked to make their decisions as quickly as possible and they are not required to provide us with technical comments. In the case of your manuscript, however, we were provided with some comments for your information (see below).
Wiley Editing Services Available to All Authors
Should you be interested, Wiley Editing Services offers expert help with manuscript, language, and format editing, along with other article preparation services. You can learn more about this service option at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/preparation. You can also check out Wiley’s collection of free article preparation resources for general guidance about writing and preparing your manuscript at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/prepresources.
Due to a large volume of submissions, please do not revise and resubmit a rejected paper. We appreciate your submitting this manuscript for our consideration. We look forward to having opportunity of publishing some of your future work.
Sincerely,
Wenquan Che
Editor-in-Chief, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
Area Editor, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
Associate Editor, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
Associate Editor's Comments to Author:
Response:
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript submitted to Microwave and Optical Technology Letters. We appreciate the challenges that high-impact journals face in balancing rapid publication with maintaining scientific quality.
However, we would like to respectfully respond to the decision conveyed. It is widely observable that many articles supporting mainstream theories, despite being published in top journals, often lack substantive scientific value and may be considered low-quality. In contrast, research that challenges prevailing paradigms but manages to be published in leading journals demonstrates clear academic merit and deserves thorough and careful evaluation.
Our work on the wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption has already been published in multiple reputable journals, indicating its foundation in significant and peer-recognized theoretical innovation. The nature of rapid communication journals is to ensure quick dissemination, but this should not equate to compromising the review quality or prematurely dismissing potentially paradigm-challenging research. In practice, expedited review processes tend to favor submissions aligned with mainstream theories, while articles opposing these paradigms often undergo prolonged and more stringent scrutiny, sometimes resulting in rejection based on criteria beyond purely scientific merit.
Moreover, the high desk-rejection rates seen at prestigious journals mean that only a small fraction of submissions proceed to peer review. This gives an illusion that all published articles are highly innovative or important, while disruptive and truly novel ideas frequently struggle to pass initial editorial screening. This systemic bias is detrimental to scientific progress.
In support of this perspective, we refer to our recent publication, "The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles" (Liu, 2025, Qeios), which documents these challenges in greater detail. While prioritizing revolutionary research alone may not eliminate the problem of low-quality publications, it is an essential step toward creating a fairer and more intellectually vibrant academic environment.
We hope this response clarifies our position and encourages reflection on how rapid publication policies might be better aligned with the mission of advancing meaningful scientific knowledge.
Thank you again for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Yue Liu
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
====================
2025年08月11日 19:00 (星期一)
Manuscript Number: MSR-D-25-00707
Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges
Dear Prof. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Materials Science & Engineering R. After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, and I must therefore reject it.
I hope you are successful in finding an alternative publication for your work. For alternative journals that may be more suitable for your manuscript, please refer to our
.
We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to Materials Science & Engineering R and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Kind Regards,
Thomas Anthopoulos
Editor-in-Chief
Materials Science & Engineering R
==========
2025年08月05日 04:37 (星期二)
04-Aug-2025
Dear Professor Liu:
I write you in regards to manuscript # JACERS-55489 entitled "Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption" which you submitted to the Journal of the American Ceramic Society as an Article is being rejected without review because it falls outside the scope of the Journal.
I wish to stress that this rejection does not reflect in any way the technical content of the manuscript. The technical content has not yet been evaluated. Rather it is based on my opinion that the Journal is not the best venue for this publication and it would not have a large impact on your field because it would be published in an unexpected place. I believe that it would be in your best interest to submit this manuscript to a journal specializing in subject matter. Therefore, I regret that your manuscript has been denied publication in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society without the possibility of resubmission. The Journal is not able to publish all the submissions it receives and every effort is made to publish only the submissions that will be of most value to its primary readership.
Thank you for considering the Journal of the American Ceramic Society for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific evaluation will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts
Wiley Editing Services Available to All Authors
Should you be interested, Wiley Editing Services offers expert help with manuscript, language, and format editing, along with other article preparation services. You can learn more about this service option at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/preparation. You can also check out Wiley’s collection of free article preparation resources for general guidance about writing and preparing your manuscript at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/prepresources.
Sincerely,
Dr John Mauro
Editor in Chief, Journal of the American Ceramic Society
jcm426@psu.edu
============
2025年07月31日 00:21 (星期四)
30th July 2025
Dear Professor Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Nature, which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.
It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.
In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.
We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion but hope that you will rapidly receive a more favourable response elsewhere.
Yours sincerely,
Manuscript Administration, Nature
This email has been sent through the Springer Nature Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-SN&MTS
====
2025年07月29日 18:09 (星期二)
29-Jul-2025
Manuscript number: aea9679
Dear Dr. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges" to Science. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of work that we publish and we are thus not considering it for publication. We appreciate your interest in Science.
Sincerely,
Holden Thorp, Ph.D.
Editor in Chief
Science
hthorp@aaas.org
===========
2025年07月22日 10:24 (星期二)
Ref. JALCOM-D-25-13417
Title: Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations
Corresponding author: Professor Yue Liu
Journal of Alloys and Compounds
Dear Professor Liu,
Thanks for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Alloys and Compounds. However it does not meet the journal's desired standard. We regret to inform you that we cannot admit the manuscript into the formal peer review process.
Yours sincerely,
Mingzhong Wu, Ph.D.
Journal of Alloys and Compounds
Comments to Authors:
Journal of Alloys and Compounds does not publish uninvited perspective or review articles. You may contact one of the JALCOM editors working in the relevant field and see whether he or she is interested in inviting you to submit a review article.
Reject- Without Peer Review
===========
2025年07月15日 14:54 (星期二)
Ms. Ref. No.: CERI-D-25-10064
Title: Assessing the Uptake of the Wave Cancellation Theory in Microwave Absorption Research: A Citation-Based Review
Ceramics International
Dear Prof. Yue Liu,
We are in receipt of your manuscript "Assessing the Uptake of the Wave Cancellation Theory in Microwave Absorption Research: A Citation-Based Review" .
Thank you for your interest in publishing with Ceramics International. Unfortunately, due to an extremely high number of submissions to the journal, we are unable to consider your manuscript at this time.
We wish you much success with seeking publication of your manuscript elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Ceramics International Editorial office
==================
Related preprint:
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
2025年08月14日 04:13 (星期四)
Manuscript Number: COGNIT-D-25-00948
Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry
Dear Prof. Liu,
Our sincere thanks for letting us consider your manuscript at Cognition. Based on editorial pre-review of your submission, we have made the decision not to send your manuscript out for review.
A number of factors are considered in coming to this decision, which is not a judgment about the quality of the research presented. Some of these factors include considerations about the general interest of the topic to the broad readership of Cognition, whether the manuscript can make the required theoretical advance, or whether the manuscript would be better suited for a more specialized journal whose readership could more easily appreciate the nuances of the research.
Editorial pre-review is a long-standing part of the Cognition review process, and each year we are faced with significant additional pressures (i.e., increased submissions, increased competition, and a growing publication backlog), and consequently, we have a tight criterion we use in editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts. As a result, Cognition cannot accommodate all submissions that may ultimately be publishable. Thus, we are attempting to take such decisions prior to the review process in order to reduce the time manuscripts are in our hands. It is our hope that faster decisions of this type will be of value to authors who will experience a shorter delay in their efforts to publish their work.
Thank you, again, for giving us the privilege of considering your article. We appreciate your support of Cognition and warmly welcome your future breakthrough submissions.
Kindly,
Dr Ori Friedman
Editor-in-Chief
Cognition
Editor and Reviewer comments (if applicable):
—————————-
=====================
References
(1) Liu, Y. The Entrenched Problems of Scientific Progress: An Analysis of Institutional Resistance and Systemic Barriers to Innovation. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.2152.v1.
(2) Liu, Y. The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles. Qeios 2025. DOI: 10.32388/QD8GGF.
(3) Liu, Y. Commentary on Journal Rejections: The Liu et al. Microwave Absorption Theory Case. PsyArXiv 2025. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/yza3h_v1.
(4) Liu, Y. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science. preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2
(5) Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges. arXiv:2508.06522v2 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522.
(6) Paulus, F. M.; Cruz, N.; Krach, S. The Impact Factor Fallacy. Front Psychol 2018, 9, 1487. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487 From NLM PubMed-not-MEDLINE.
(7) Brown, A. W.; Mehta, T. S.; Allison, D. B. 9 Publication Bias in Science: What Is It, Why Is It Problematic, and How Can It Be Addressed? In The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, Jamieson, K. H., Kahan, D. M., Scheufele, D. A. Eds.; Oxford University Press, 2017; pp 93–101.
(8) The Impact Factor Debate: Assessing Journal Prestige and Research Quality. https://eikipub.com/index.php/learning-resources/the-impact-factor-debate-assessing-journal-prestige-and-research-quality (accessed.
(9) Liu, Y. Challenging the Desk-Rejection Dogma. 2025. https://yueliusd.substack.com/p/challenging-the-desk-rejection-dogma (accessed.
(10) Katritsis, D. G. Journal Impact Factor: Widely Used, Misused and Abused. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev 2019, 8 (3), 153-155. DOI: 10.15420/aer.2019.8.3.FO1 From NLM PubMed-not-MEDLINE.
(11) Sarkar, A. Academic Peer‑Reviews Are Heavily Influenced by ‘Status‑bias’: Study. 2023. https://www.theswaddle.com/academic-peer-reviews-are-heavily-influenced-by-status-bias-study (accessed.
(12) Beugelsdijk, S.; Bird, A. How to avoid a desk reject: do’s and don’ts. Journal of International Business Studies 2024, 56 (3), 301-310. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-024-00712-8.
(13) Zerfu, T. Why desk rejections happen and how young researchers can avoid them: practical lessons from experience. 2025. https://ecrlife.org/why-desk-rejections-happen/ (accessed.
(14) Lee, C. J.; Sugimoto, C. R.; Zhang, G.; Cronin, B. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012, 64 (1), 2-17. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784.
(15) Liu, Y. Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill? The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress. PsyArXiv 2025. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/5v8s6_v1.
(16) Braben, D. W. Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization; WILEY-INTERSCIENCE, 2008.
(17) Brainard, J. Research may be increasingly incremental—but studies making lasting paradigm shifts are on the rise. 2025. https://www.science.org/content/article/research-may-be-increasingly-incremental-studies-making-lasting-paradigm-shifts-are (accessed.
(18) Warner, J. J. Disruptive Research and its Publication are Decreasing. 2023. https://www.codman-shoulder-society.com/single-post/disruptive-research-and-its-publication-are-decreasing (accessed.
(19) Bohannon, J. Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reason. Science 2016. DOI: 10.1126/science.aag0643.
(20) Flaherty, C. When Journals Play Favorites. 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/02/study-finds-evidence-institutional-favoritism-academic-publishing (accessed.
(21) Ansell, B. W.; Samuels, D. J. Desk Rejecting: A Better Use of Your Time. PS: Political Science & Politics 2021, 54 (4), 686-689. DOI: 10.1017/s1049096521000482.
(22) Curtin, J. Yes, Peer Review is Broken, but It’s Probably Worse than You Think. 2024. https://sites.duke.edu/cemmt/2024/04/11/yes-peer-review-is-broken-but-its-probably-worse-than-you-think/ (accessed.
(23) Teplitskiy, M.; Peng, H.; Blasco, A.; Lakhani, K. R. Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022, 119 (47), e2118046119. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118046119 From NLM Medline.
(24) Proctor, D. M.; Dada, N.; Serquina, A.; Willett, J. L. E. Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training. mBio 2023, 14 (3), e0318322. DOI: 10.1128/mbio.03183-22 From NLM Medline.
(25) Irfanullah, H. Peer Review Has Lost Its Human Face. So, What’s Next? 2025. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/04/09/peer-review-has-lost-its-human-face-so-whats-next/ (accessed.
(26) Liu, Y. Comment on Springer's New Screening Tool for AI Tortured Phrases. PsyArXiv 2025. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/j5ry2_v1.
(27) Smalheiser, N. R. How many scientists does it take to change a paradigm? New ideas to explain scientific observations are everywhere--we just need to learn how to see them. EMBO Rep 2013, 14 (10), 861-865. DOI: 10.1038/embor.2013.125 From NLM Medline.
(28) Ball, P. Rejection improves eventual impact of manuscripts. Nature 2012. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2012.11583.
(29) Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. https://fs.blog/how-scientific-advancement-happens/ (accessed.