Does Peer Review of Papers Stifle Innovation?

Once again, I was pleased to have three papers accepted and a couple rejected for an upcoming conference later this year. That’s not a problem in itself. However, when I think that the two rejected papers contained innovative contributions, while the two accepted ones were merely continuations of previous research (luckily one of the accepted ones had something quite new), it raises a question:

Does the peer-review system truly foster the advancement of science and technology?

In the meantime, a friend sent me a short video (link below) that really provoked me to write this post. Watch it and see if the following thoughts resonate with you. I also added the corresponding text below the link for your reflection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTOMkj15uco

"People talk GLIBLY about science. What is science? People coming out of a university with a masters degree or a PhD - you take them into the field and they literally don't believe anything unless there's a peer-reviewed paper! That's the only thing they accept. And you say to them, "but... Let's observe, Let's think, Let's discuss." They don't do it. It's just, "Is it in a peer-reviewed paper, or not?" That's their view of science! I think it's pathetic!

Going into universities as bright young people - they come out of them BRAIN DEAD, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers, etc. NO! That's "Academia"! And if a paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the SAME, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when NEW knowledge emerges, NEW scientific insights... they can never, ever be peer-reviewed.

So, we're blocking all new advances in Science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in Science, almost always they don't come from the center of that profession - they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn't even think of electric lights. They don't come from within, they often come from the outside the bricks.

We're going to kill ourselves because of stupidity."

~ Professor Allan Savory - Ecologist

_____________

Of course, peer review plays a role in maintaining the academic rigor and credibility of scientific research. However, the concern that it can also stifle innovation is very serious.

Key Issues in the Peer-Review System:

·???????? Reviewers may unconsciously favor research that aligns with existing frameworks while rejecting unconventional or disruptive ideas.

·???????? Rivalries, institutional interests, or preconceived notions can influence acceptance decisions.

·???????? Papers that challenge the work of the reviewers themselves may face undue skepticism or rejection.

·???????? The time-consuming nature of peer review can delay the dissemination of important findings.

Possible Solutions to Improve the System:

·???????? Double-blind or open peer review to reduce bias.

·???????? Preprints and rapid reviews for groundbreaking work.

·???????? Dedicated journals for speculative or unconventional research.

·???????? Diverse reviewer selection to ensure a mix of perspectives and backgrounds.

?

Is this an exaggerated view? I would love to hear your reactions.

Cheers,

Paulo

?

?