This paper presents a comprehensive examination of the systemic barriers facing scholarly work that challenges mainstream academic paradigms, revealing how institutional gatekeeping mechanisms effectively prevent critical voices from finding publication outlets. Through rigorous analysis of three paradigmatic cases—peer review gatekeeping at prestigious journals, preprint platform moderation masquerading as quality control, and online platform censorship—we demonstrate that mainstream academia systematically suppresses publications that challenge established theories and practices. Our analysis reveals that preprint moderation has been weaponized by the academic establishment under the false pretext of preventing "low-quality publications," while the true perpetrators of academic pollution are mainstream journals that flood the literature with incremental, theory-conforming research lacking genuine innovation. We argue that authors seeking preprint publication are driven not by fame-seeking motivations but by sincere conviction in their research findings and the absence of alternative publication venues. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for creating genuinely open platforms for scholarly discourse that can accommodate rigorous critical examination of established paradigms.
Yue Liu (Sat,) studied this question.