Authors: Hartmut Traunmüller
Scientific journals do not normally publish any paper that directly discredits the currently accepted doctrine within their field, no matter how wrong it is. This is because referees can easily identify deviations from current doctrine and established practice, while it requires a higher intellectual effort to assimilate a new point of view and to follow a non-traditional path of reasoning. Referees naturally tend to avoid this extra effort. Students, researchers and editors are aware of this and so are likely to choose a mode of action that does not threaten their own carrier. Thus, they prefer to follow the mainstream. These circumstances are apt to preclude fundamental progress in science for long periods of time. This is merely a case study about the history of a paper that illustrates this problem.
Comments: 12 Pages.
[v1] 2018-02-14 12:21:45
Unique-IP document downloads: 20 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.