Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping

This 2014 study found that unconventional and groundbreaking research was routinely rejected by medical journals:

“Our research suggests that evaluative strategies that increase the mean quality of published science may also increase the risk of rejecting unconventional or outstanding work.”

The study was also a collateral indication of the degree to which peer reviewers didn’t try to advance science. “Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping”

This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.