Peer review does not like novelty very much

Peer review makes publication of novel work much more difficult, particularly if it challenges a dominant narrative.
 
Our most important work on streamflow modeling in recent years has been rejected by two leading journals. (The manuscript challenges the widely accepted notion that every landscape is unique.) . The first journal rejected the manuscript mainly because one reviewer had issues with the terminology we used and was not impressed because we argued back. The second journal's editor rejected it for reasons totally unknown to us; there was not a single comment that challenged our conclusions. In fact, among all the comments we have received from the two journals, there was only one comment that required additional analysis, which we did and showed that our conclusions remained unchanged.
 
Novel works are particularly vulnerable because the peer review system does not appreciate negative comments. How can you ensure there are no negative comments when your work challenges a dominant narrative? The difficulty is increased manyfold. Of course, I don't need to mention the racial and national biases that come into play.
 
In the meantime, I have put the manuscript in a preprint domain for everyone to review. I have also presented our results in various forums and received largely positive comments. We are pursuing several other projects based on this work. The peer review system allows insecure and incompetent people to hide behind the veil and create obstacles.

All journals should adopt the open review process pioneered by HESS. It is not a great solution, but at least it allows everyone to see the entire discussion.

(LinkedIn, December 2024)