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.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/360.full “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.