Lots of future Nobel Laureates had their groundbreaking work rejected by scientific journals. Juan Miguel Campanario, a Physics Professor in Madrid, writes an article about it called “Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries.” But he can’t get it published.
Hmmmm. Do I smell a future Nobel Laureate?
Although I don’t agree with the complete, decontextualized hindsight logic of the claims, it’s still interesting to look back and see the ways of peer review.
Note too that this guy’s actually talking about two things: first is the issue of resisting new discoveries; second is the matter of rejecting papers outright that later turn out to be quite novel and on the mark.
My good, dear co-blogger Dave will find this one especially interesting:
Michael Smith received the half of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for his fundamental contributions to the establishment of oligonucleiotide-based, site-directed mutageneis and its development of protein studies”. Here, again, a paper reporting the work for which the Nobel Prize was awarded was rejected when first submitted for publication. Eventually, the article ended up on pages of another journal and not surprisingly, its appearance attracted well-deserved scientific attention. Prof. Smith interpreted the rejection as a cause of “a subjective judgment by the editor of a journal to which many more manuscripts are submitted than could be published.”
(Campanario notes that his own work was referenced in a Nature editorial about peer rejection.)
And thanks to The Morning News guys for the link.