Preprint: The Persistence of Intellectual Resistance -- From Copernicus to Contemporary Science
If we were to transport modern scientists to the era of Copernicus and Galileo, most would likely find themselves on the side of the establishment, defending the conventional wisdom of their time
The Persistence of Intellectual Resistance: From Copernicus to Contemporary Science
Preprint:
Liu, Yue, The Persistence of Intellectual Resistance: From Copernicus to Contemporary Science (August 20, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5399455 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5399455
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
This article examines the enduring patterns of resistance to revolutionary scientific ideas from the Copernican era to the present day. Despite the advancement of scientific methodology and institutional frameworks over centuries, the fundamental human and institutional mechanisms that generate opposition to paradigm-shifting discoveries remain largely unchanged. Through analysis of historical cases and contemporary examples, we demonstrate that Max Planck's principle—that scientific progress occurs through generational change rather than rational persuasion—continues to characterize modern scientific institutions. The article explores how academic publishing systems, peer review processes, and institutional hierarchies perpetuate conservative biases that favor incremental research over revolutionary discoveries. We argue that the intellectual courage required to challenge established paradigms is no more prevalent today than it was during Galileo's time, and that modern scientific institutions have developed sophisticated mechanisms that maintain orthodoxy while appearing to promote innovation. The persistence of these patterns suggests that the human elements of scientific progress—particularly the resistance to ideas that threaten existing power structures and worldviews—remain constant across historical periods.
Keywords: paradigm shift, scientific revolution, peer review bias, academic conservatism, Planck's principle, institutional resistance, scientific orthodoxy
Introduction
When Nicolaus Copernicus proposed his heliocentric model in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543), he faced not merely religious opposition but also resistance from the astronomical establishment of his time. Similarly, when Galileo Galilei defended heliocentrism through telescopic observations in the early 17th century, he encountered opposition from both the Catholic Church and the scientific community. These historical episodes are often cited as examples of how institutional power can suppress scientific truth. However, a deeper analysis reveals that the patterns of resistance observed in these cases persist in contemporary science, suggesting that the fundamental mechanisms underlying opposition to revolutionary ideas transcend specific historical contexts. 1-3
Max Planck, writing in his scientific autobiography, observed that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"4. This principle, colloquially paraphrased as "science progresses one funeral at a time,5" suggests that scientific change occurs through generational turnover rather than rational discourse. If Planck's observation was accurate for his era, the question arises: has the nature of scientific progress fundamentally changed in the modern era, or do the same human dynamics continue to govern how new ideas are received and integrated into scientific knowledge?
Historical Foundations of Scientific Resistance
The resistance faced by Copernicus and Galileo exemplifies the complex interplay between intellectual conservatism and institutional power that characterizes scientific revolutions. Contrary to popular narratives that emphasize purely religious opposition, the scientific community of the 16th and 17th centuries played a significant role in resisting heliocentric theory. Even after the publication of De revolutionibus, most astronomers remained committed to the geocentric model, viewing the heliocentric theory as either impossible to reconcile with established physics or simply absurd. 1-3, 6
The case of Galileo is particularly instructive because it demonstrates how resistance operates at multiple levels simultaneously. While the Inquisition's trial of Galileo in 1633 is well-documented, the broader scientific community's response reveals deeper patterns. Before his condemnation, Galileo faced skepticism from fellow astronomers who questioned not only his conclusions but also his methods and interpretations. The resistance he encountered was not merely institutional but reflected genuine intellectual disagreement about the nature of evidence and the proper methods of scientific inquiry.2, 3
Thomas Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasizes that the new paradigm initially offered no significant improvement in predictive accuracy over the Ptolemaic system7. The acceptance of heliocentrism was not based on overwhelming empirical evidence but rather on a promise of future simplicity and explanatory power. This observation underscores the non-rational elements in paradigm shifts and suggests that resistance to new ideas often reflects genuine uncertainty about their validity rather than mere stubbornness or vested interests.8
Planck's Principle and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Max Planck's principle5 provides a framework for understanding why scientific resistance persists across historical periods. The principle suggests that the acceptance of new scientific ideas depends less on their empirical merit than on the demographic composition of the scientific community. This insight aligns with Thomas Kuhn's theory7, 8 of scientific revolutions, which emphasizes the non-rational elements in paradigm shifts. 9, 10
Kuhn's model describes scientific development as alternating between periods of "normal science," characterized by consensus around fundamental assumptions, and "revolutionary science," marked by the emergence of new paradigms that fundamentally alter the rules of scientific practice. During periods of normal science, the scientific community engages in "puzzle-solving" within the established paradigm, while anomalies that cannot be resolved within the existing framework accumulate gradually. 8, 10, 11
The transition from one paradigm to another involves what Kuhn termed "incommensurability"—the inability to translate concepts and methods between paradigms. This incommensurability helps explain why rational persuasion often fails to convince adherents of the old paradigm. Scientists operating within different paradigms literally inhabit different worlds, with different assumptions about what constitutes legitimate questions, valid methods, and acceptable answers.10
Recent empirical research has provided mixed support for Planck's principle. Some studies have found that age is a weak predictor of scientists' willingness to accept new ideas. However, other research has demonstrated that the death of prominent researchers can lead to rapid changes in research directions, with new investigators entering fields previously dominated by established authorities. This pattern suggests that while individual scientists may be capable of changing their minds, institutional structures and power dynamics can perpetuate resistance to new ideas.9
Contemporary Manifestations of Scientific Conservatism
Despite the supposed commitment of modern science to objectivity and evidence-based reasoning, contemporary research reveals that the mechanisms Planck described continue to operate in academic institutions. The peer review system, while designed to maintain quality standards, has evolved into a mechanism that often reinforces conservative biases and inhibits paradigm-shifting research. 12-14
Yue Liu, Balancing Transparency and Data Protection in Academic Publishing: The Case of Editorial Correspondence Disclosure on Preprint Servers, Doi: 10.20944/preprints202508.1193.v3 Website: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202508.1193/v3
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
Liu, Yue, The Untouchable Crisis: Academic Silence, Authority Conformity, and the Suppression of Critical Discourse in Modern Science, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Hypothetical Elimination of Science and Nature Journals: Assessing Scientific Progress and Innovation 销毁Science和Nature期刊上的全部论文，对世界科技会带来什么样的影响？, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Analysis of Materials Today Physics Rejection Letter, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies: Why Fairness Is Not Equivalence Between Correct and Incorrect Theories, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Quick Decisions, Conventional Outcomes: How Rapid Editorial Processes Marginalize Disruptive Innovation, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Analysis of Rejection Letters: A Case Study in Scientific Publishing Resistance to Paradigm-Challenging Research, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, A Critical Rebuttal to Systemic Reviewer and Editorial Errors in Microwave Absorption Research: Exposing Authority Bias, Scientific Misunderstanding, and the Failure of Peer Review, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Exposing Fundamental Misconceptions in Peer Review: A Critical Analysis of Editorial and Reviewer Failures in Microwave Absorption Theory Evaluation, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Editorial Bias and Reviewer Inconsistency: How Academic Gatekeeping Prevents Theoretical Correction, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Publication Outlets for Sharp Criticism of Academia: A Deep Analysis of Institutional Gatekeeping and Systemic Suppression, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Manuscript Rejection Based Solely on Divergent Perspectives: A Critique of Reviewer Consensus as Grounds for Academic Dismissal -- Unrefuted Arguments Retain Scholarly Value and Merit Consideration for Publication, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Commentary on Academic Gatekeeping Through Anonymization Requirements, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Commentary on Journal Rejections: The Liu et al. Microwave Absorption Theory Case, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, The Academic AI Backlash: Innovation vs. Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Comment on Springer's New Screening Tool for AI Tortured Phrases, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Comment on Dr. Ali Hussein Wheeb's Opinion on Peer Review, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Commentary: A Critical Review of Arguments Against Preprint, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
Liu, Yue, Why Has Physics Come to a Standstill? The Case of Microwave Absorption Theory and the State of Scientific Progress, 2025, yueliusd.substack.com
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
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, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
Publication Bias and Academic Orthodoxy
Modern academic publishing exhibits systematic biases that favor research confirming existing theories over studies that challenge established paradigms. Studies have documented a significant increase in publication bias over recent decades, with the frequency of papers supporting their a priori hypotheses increasing by 22% between 1990 and 2007. This trend suggests that contemporary science is becoming more, rather than less, conservative in its acceptance of challenging findings. 15-17
The preference for positive results creates a self-reinforcing cycle that artificially inflates confidence in established theories. When negative or contradictory findings are systematically excluded from the literature, researchers base their work on a biased sample of evidence, leading to overconfidence in prevailing paradigms.18-20 This phenomenon closely parallels the resistance that Copernicus and Galileo faced, albeit through different institutional mechanisms.16
Yue Liu, Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1
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:2508.06522v3, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
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
Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu,Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 1: A Theoretical Perspective, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v5, supplementary.docx (919.54KB ).
Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu, Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202504.0447.v3, Supplementary Materials IVB. Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption - A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek. Int J Phys Res Appl. 2025; 8(6): 149-155. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.29328/journal.ijpra.1001123, Supplementary Materials, DOI: 10.29328/journal.ijpra.1001123
Research on grant funding processes reveals similar conservative biases. Studies of grant review panels have found that evaluators tend to focus on potential weaknesses rather than strengths of novel proposals, leading to systematic disadvantages for innovative research. The combination of limited funding and competitive pressures encourages "safe" research that builds incrementally on established findings rather than pursuing high-risk, high-reward investigations that might challenge fundamental assumptions.12, 14
The Problem of Academic Gatekeeping
The concentration of power in editorial boards, grant review panels, and hiring committees creates multiple points where innovative research can be blocked. These gatekeepers, often senior researchers with established reputations built on current paradigms, have both conscious and unconscious incentives to maintain the status quo. Their expertise, which grants them authority to evaluate new research, is precisely what makes them resistant to ideas that might invalidate their life's work. 21, 22
The academic reward system exacerbates these problems by prioritizing publication in high-impact journals and citation counts over genuine innovation. Junior researchers, who might be most inclined to pursue revolutionary ideas, face pressure to conform to established patterns to secure employment and advancement. This dynamic ensures that even when new ideas emerge, they are often filtered out before reaching broader scientific consideration.17, 21
Liu, Yue, Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing: A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment (August 14, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5392646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5392646
The phenomenon of "cargo cult science," identified by Richard Feynman23, describes research that follows the superficial forms of scientific investigation while lacking the essential commitment to truth-seeking that characterizes genuine science. Contemporary manifestations of cargo cult science include research designed primarily to generate publications rather than advance understanding, and studies that manipulate methodology or interpretation to achieve desired results.
Status Bias and Institutional Hierarchies
Recent empirical research has documented significant status bias in peer review processes. Studies show that when the same research is attributed to Nobel laureates versus unknown researchers, evaluation outcomes differ dramatically, with acceptance rates varying by more than tenfold. This finding demonstrates that the supposed objectivity of peer review is compromised by hierarchical considerations that have little to do with scientific merit. 15
The persistence of status bias suggests that scientific evaluation continues to depend heavily on authority rather than evidence—the same dynamic that led to resistance against Copernicus and Galileo. While the specific authorities have changed from religious to academic institutions, the underlying mechanism remains the same: new ideas are evaluated not solely on their merits but on their compatibility with existing power structures and established reputations. 15
The Illusion of Progress
The evidence suggests that while scientific knowledge has advanced dramatically since the Copernican era, the human and institutional factors that generate resistance to revolutionary ideas remain largely unchanged. Modern science has developed sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining orthodoxy while appearing to promote innovation and objectivity.
The peer review system exemplifies this paradox. While ostensibly designed to ensure quality and objectivity, peer review often functions as a conservative filter that screens out ideas challenging fundamental assumptions24. The system's reliance on existing experts to evaluate new ideas creates an inherent bias toward incremental rather than revolutionary research. 12, 13
Similarly, the emphasis on replication and statistical significance, while valuable for maintaining scientific rigor, can be used to reject genuinely novel findings that are difficult to replicate using established methods25, 26. The requirement for overwhelming evidence before accepting new paradigms often means that revolutionary ideas are rejected not because they are wrong, but because they are ahead of their time. 16
Implications for Scientific Progress
The persistence of resistance mechanisms across historical periods raises fundamental questions about the nature of scientific progress. If Planck's principle continues to operate in contemporary science, then the rational model of scientific advance—in which better evidence leads to better theories—provides an incomplete picture of how scientific knowledge actually develops.
The implications extend beyond academic sociology to practical questions about how society can most effectively support genuine innovation. Current funding mechanisms, evaluation criteria, and career incentives may systematically discourage the kind of revolutionary thinking that drives major scientific advances. The focus on short-term, measurable outcomes may favor research that produces immediate results over investigations that challenge fundamental assumptions and require longer time horizons to demonstrate their value.
The problem is particularly acute in interdisciplinary research, where new paradigms often emerge at the boundaries between established fields. The departmental structure of universities and the specialization of academic journals create barriers to cross-disciplinary collaboration and make it difficult for boundary-spanning ideas to find appropriate venues for development and dissemination. 27
Toward Reform of Scientific Institutions
Recognition of these persistent patterns suggests the need for fundamental reforms in how scientific institutions evaluate and support research. Simply exhorting scientists to be more open-minded is unlikely to succeed, given that the current problems emerge from structural features of academic institutions rather than individual failings.
Several potential reforms merit consideration. First, funding agencies could implement mechanisms specifically designed to support high-risk, high-reward research that challenges established paradigms. The success of programs like DARPA suggests that alternative evaluation criteria can identify and support genuinely innovative research that might be rejected by traditional peer review. 13
Second, academic institutions could modify reward systems to recognize and value genuine innovation over incremental publication. This might involve longer evaluation periods, alternative metrics for assessing impact, and protection for researchers pursuing unconventional approaches. 21
Third, the scientific community could develop institutional mechanisms for protecting and nurturing paradigm-shifting research during its vulnerable early stages. This might include specialized journals for negative results, funding programs for replication studies, and mentorship programs that connect innovative researchers with senior scientists who can provide protection from institutional pressures. 28
Conclusion
The historical pattern of resistance to revolutionary scientific ideas from Copernicus and Galileo to the present day reveals the persistence of human and institutional dynamics that transcend specific historical contexts. Despite dramatic advances in scientific methodology and institutional sophistication, the fundamental mechanisms that generate opposition to paradigm-shifting discoveries remain largely unchanged.
Max Planck's observation that scientific truth advances "one funeral at a time" continues to characterize contemporary science, suggesting that generational change rather than rational persuasion remains the primary driver of paradigm shifts. The development of modern academic institutions has not eliminated these dynamics but has instead created new mechanisms through which conservative biases operate.
“Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.”
--Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5
引申：
历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。
Expansion:
History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value.
The persistence of these patterns has important implications for how society structures and supports scientific research. Current institutional arrangements, while successful at supporting incremental scientific advance, may systematically discourage the kind of revolutionary thinking that drives major breakthroughs. Recognition of this problem suggests the need for fundamental reforms in academic institutions, funding mechanisms, and evaluation criteria.
The ultimate lesson of this analysis is that scientific progress depends not only on the accumulation of empirical evidence but also on the social and institutional contexts within which research occurs. Understanding and addressing the human elements of scientific resistance may be essential for maintaining the innovative capacity that has driven scientific progress throughout history. Just as the intellectual courage required to challenge Ptolemaic astronomy was rare in Copernicus's time, the willingness to question fundamental assumptions remains uncommon in contemporary science. The challenge for modern institutions is to create structures that can better identify, protect, and nurture the revolutionary ideas that will drive future scientific progress.
The sobering conclusion is that if we were to transport modern scientists to the era of Copernicus and Galileo, most would likely find themselves on the side of the establishment, defending the conventional wisdom of their time. This recognition should inspire humility about our own potential blind spots and motivate efforts to create institutional environments more conducive to genuine scientific revolution. The future of scientific progress may depend less on accumulating more evidence within existing paradigms than on developing the institutional wisdom to recognize and nurture the next generation of paradigm-shifting ideas.
References
(1) Leveillee, N. P. Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World. Inquiries Journal 2011, 3 (5).
(2) Galileo Galilei. 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/.
(3) Galileo affair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair.
(4) Planck, M. Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper; William & Norgate, 1950.
(5) Planck's principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle.
(6) Barber, B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science 1961, 134 (3479), 596-602. DOI: 10.1126/science.134.3479.596 From NLM Medline.
(7) Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. https://fs.blog/how-scientific-advancement-happens/.
(8) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.
(9) Chakraborty, A. Cargo Cult Science: When You Follow The Instructions But Don’t Understand The Process. 2025. https://coffeeandjunk.com/cargo-cult-science/.
(10) Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,; The University of Chicago, 2012.
(11) Paradigm shift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift.
(12) Lanei, J. N.; Teplitskiy, M.; Gray, G.; Ranu, H.; Menietti, M.; Guinan, E.; Lakhani, K. R. Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation. Manage Sci 2022, 68 (6), 4478-4495. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.4107 From NLM PubMed-not-MEDLINE.
(13) Bendiscioli, S. The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision-making. EMBO Rep 2019, 20 (12), e49472. DOI: 10.15252/embr.201949472 From NLM Medline.
(14) Oxley, K. S. Understanding conservatism in grant peer review 2025. https://nomadit.co.uk/conference/metascience2025/paper/91015.
(15) 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.
(16) Joober, R.; Schmitz, N.; Annable, L.; Boksa, P. Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome? J Psychiatry Neurosci 2012, 37 (3), 149-152. DOI: 10.1503/jpn.120065 From NLM Medline.
(17) Joshua Pitt on Silenced Issues in Academic Publishing. https://www.palgrave.com/gp/blogs/social-sciences/josh-pitt-on-silenced-issues-in-academic-publishing.
(18) 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.
(19) 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
(20) Liu, Y. The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation. PsyArXiv 2025. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/m93bj_v1.
(21) Phung, T.-T. L. Rethinking Academic Gatekeepers: The Collapse of Journals, Metrics, and the Future of University Knowledge. 2025. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rethinking-academic-gatekeepers-collapse-journals-metrics-le-phung-zetme.
(22) Manzotti, R. Who is afraid of new ideas? The resistance of scientific journalism to brave and radical hypotheses. The case of Steve Ayan. 2022. https://www.riccardomanzotti.com/is-ayan-a-new-bellarmine/.
(23) Feynman, R. Cargo Cult Science, From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974. 1974. https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html.
(24) Liu, Y.; Yang, K.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower. arXiv 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966.
(25) Liu, Y. The Misapplication of Statistical Methods in Liberal Arts: A Critical Analysis of Academic Publishing Bias Against Theoretical Research SSRN 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5376778.
(26) Liu, Y. Why Are Research Findings Supported by Experimental Data with High Probability Often False? --Critical Analysis of the Replication Crisis and Statistical Bias in Scientific Literature. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.1953.v1.
(27) Arora, A.; Belenzon, S.; Patacconi, A.; Suh, J. The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth. Innovation Policy and the Economy 2020, 20, 39-93. DOI: 10.1086/705638.
(28) 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.