Peer Review Gatekeepers in Journals

Peer reviewed journals have become the most influential mode of transmitting new scientific ideas; almost necessary in order for an idea to be even considered. When a paper receives peer reviewed acceptance, it means it has passed through the gauntlets of testing from experts in the fields.

The problem with this method being looked to as "essential" is that it provides no room for these peer reviewer's ignorance. Certainly, experts are extremely well-established in their fields and have spent much time and energy learning what is commonly accepted within each field. However, new ideas that are outside of the general thought patterns are so drastically limited that it is nearly impossible for them to be earnestly considered. This unintended consequence leads to ideas being stifled by people simply not considering that which has not already been considered. This limits scientific progress because it prevents new ideas from being heard.

For example, it is very easy to publish a paper that is in line with what a journal generally publishes, reiterating more of the same. It is very difficult to publish a paper that counterargues what a journal generally publishes.

Additionally, due to the academic nature of peer-reviewed work, it is nearly impossible for a paper to receive earnest consideration when it is written by one individual. In other words, if the author is not in a position of academia or professional employment within the field, and is a "pro se" filer, then their work does not go through the same rigors of editing and insuring it fits within the confines of what a journal will deem appropriate to publish.

Moreover, when a journal chooses to publish an idea, they have the rights to charge people for the knowledge. In this way, information is drastically limited to only select few. So, even if an idea does get through the gatekeeper process of peer-review, having jumped through all the hurdles of acceptance, it still is limited by a journal's publication methods.

Three years ago, after initial efforts to publish through peer reviewed journals and realizing how close-minded the peer review process was, I chose to publish my own research online and face the long and hard battle of having my work being taken seriously. I knew, though, that I had an opportunity to help shed light on the flaws of the ways we do things by publishing my research on my own. This is because my research paper, which I called The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy, is the actual "Theory of Everything."

It may not be as easy for it to get any attention as if I were to do everything in my power to get a respected journal to publish it, but I do not agree with limiting the free flow of information.