History has repeatedly taught the lesson that scientific community is conservative, and scientists are reluctant to accept new ideas. However, this lesson has never been learned:

历史反复告诫：科学界是一个保守的体系，科学家并不愿意接受新思想，但是学术界从来没有吸取教训

===================

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1419729.html

Max Planck: "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" (Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33-34).

================

and when la Varia died in 1877 he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system 当拉瓦里亚于 1877 年去世时，他仍然被认为在太阳系中发现了一颗新行星， without Lovera acting as a cheerleader for Vulcans existence it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers 没有洛维拉为瓦肯人的存在充当啦啦队队长，突然开始受到许多著名天文学家的怀疑，

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1419845.html

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Turned out to be Wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MuMPLoQZN4

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

=====

The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned

https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2

https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219

https://doi.org/10.32388/34DN8G

https://www.qeios.com/read/YLQG7T

https://www.qeios.com/read/34DN8G

https://doi.org/10.32388/34DN8G

1.     Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael Drew, The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 1: A short review, Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, scite_

2.     Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael Drew， The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material，Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplementarial file

3.     Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael Drew， The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 3: Film with multilayers, Preprint, Research Square, 13 Aug, 2023,Supplementarial file, scite_

Ethical problems in academic peer review

https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218

http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05966

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966

https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1044

 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1037

 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1040

 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1036

 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1026

 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1046

 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1020

========================

Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion, so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work and will give you many negative comments, …. Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted, otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion, science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history. The academic world is conservative. If you don’t write your paper according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive in history is exactly this kind of research.“ (2013) https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112614&version=1.1

https://www.sohu.com/a/423577113_788170 https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/389134254 诺奖得主本庶佑：CNS这些顶刊观点有九成不正确，不要盲从迷信，搞科研做到六个C更重要

真正一流的工作往往没有发在顶刊上

现在，特别是在 年轻人中间，有一种倾向，认为文章发表在有名的刊物上就是一流的工作。确实，以前日本的学者在顶级刊物上发表的文章不多。但是， 与许多人的想象不同，真正一流的工作往往没有在顶级刊物上发表。这是因为， 一流的工作往往推翻了定论，因此不受人待见，评审员会给你提很多负面的意见，你的文章也上不了顶级刊物。迎合时代风向的文章比较容易被接受，否则的话， 需要花费较长时间才能获得认可。（2000年）

如果你的研究不能推翻定论，科学也就不能进步。当然，你的研究也不会载入史册。 学术的世界是保守的。如果你不按现有的定论来写论文，你的论文就很难获得肯定，你也会吃到不少苦头，但能够载入史册的研究都是这种研究。（2013年）

我认为，发表在CNS（Nature/Science/Cell）《细胞》《自然》和《科学》上的工作未必就是好研究， 倒是被《细胞》《自然》和《科学》拒绝的时候，你的研究或许才是真正一流的工作。你既然选择了做一名研究者，就应该力争打开新的局面，做别人从没有做过的工作，或力争将现有的定论推翻。研究者要认识到，这才是第一流的研究。我认为， 为了让论文更容易被知名刊物接收而做的研究，绝不会是很好的工作。（2000年）

我认为 《自然》《科学》这些杂志上的观点有九成是不正确的，论文发表十年之后，还能被认为是正确的只剩下一成。首先，不要相信论文里写的东西。对于研究，要一直钻研到眼见为实、让自己确信为止。这是我对科学采取的基本做法。也就是说，用自己的大脑思考，一直做到自己完全想通、完全认可为止。（2018年）

关于研究：“与其第一，不如唯一”

京都大学有一个传统，那就是 “与其第一，不如唯一”。这一点对于生物学研究来说非常重要。对于自己的发现，持续地研究下去，从那里扩展开来，世界就会变得很宽阔。这一点就是我做研究的乐趣。不是说我看到别人挖到了金矿，就马上跟进去凑热闹，成为众多淘金者中的一员，而是 沿着自己已有的发现，持续地深挖下去。这样，反而是其他研究者会凑过来研究你的课题。（2000年）

研究者最大的乐趣，打个比喻来说，就是发现其他所有人都视而不见的小涌泉，把它培养成小河，再拓宽成大河。或者说，就像是闯入深山， 在无路处开出一条路，第一个在那里搭起了一根独木桥，而绝不是把别人已经搭好的独木桥改建为钢筋水泥筑成的大桥。（2003年）

生物学的研究领域很广，有很多新的东西。在这种情况下，如何找到以前人们从未曾想到的新东西来？实际上，生物学也有困难的一面。单纯演绎的手法是行不通的。也就是说，不能说如此这般那般地做了，就会有新的发现。因此， 不管是多么小的事物，只要是别的研究者还没做的研究，都可以去做。这一点很重要。（2000年）

============= 

“Can so many scientists have been wrong over the eighty years since 1925? Unhappily, yes. The mainstream in science, as any scientist will tell you, is often wrong. Otherwise, come to think of it, science would be complete. Few scientists would make that claim, or would want to. Statistical significance is surely not the only error in modern science, although it has been, as we will show, an exceptionally damaging one. Scientists are often tardy in fixing basic flaws in their sciences despite the presence of better alternatives. Think of the half century it took American geologists to recognize the truth of drifting continents, a theory proposed in 1915 by—of all eminently ignorable people—a German meteorologist. Scientists, after all, are human. What Nietzsche called the ‘twilight of the idols,’ the fear of losing a powerful symbol or god or technology, haunts us all” Ziliak, S. T. and McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. University of Michigan Press

=============

“some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long … experts were just too timid to take a stand.” Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/. 16 Oct 2018

=======

S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 577(7788) (2020) 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2