Ahhh..The Krebs cycle. I didn't realize it was initially rejected. Spent many nights studying that in college!! Publish or perish would definitely be an influencing factor. It seems that peer review has become the end all-be all and used against you if you aren't published.<quoted text>
Allow me to butt it, but this is an interesting discussion.
What about 'publish or perish'? Wouldn't that be an influencing factor?
And related, here's an excerpt of from an article on peer review:
Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Newton's Principia. Einstein's original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin's own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper.
Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, "Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as "Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers," and in fact "Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize."3 In an amusing letter titled "Not in our Nature," Campanario reminds the journal of four examples where it rejected significant papers:
(1) In 1981, Nature rejected a paper by the British biochemist Robert H. Michell on signalling reaction by hormones. This paper has since been cited more than 1,800 times.
(2) In June 1937, Nature rejected Hans Krebs's letter describing the citric acid cycle. Krebs won the 953 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for this discovery.
(3) Nature initially rejected a paper on work for which Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry; it has been identified by the Institute of Scientific Information as a core document and widely cited.
(4) A paper by Michael J. Berridge, rejected in 1983 by Nature, ranks at number 275 in a list of the most-cited papers of all time. It has been cited more than 1,900 times.4
Elsewhere, Campanario lists "instances in which 36 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on the part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt with discoveries that on later dates would assure them the Nobel Prize."5....
I have also been thinking about the way are told that new innovations will occur by taxing CO2 emissions and subsidizing alternative energy. But throughout history, have new inventions come about this way? It seems we are putting the cart before the horse. During the Industrial Revolution, all the inventions came from the private sector without government subsidies. Examples would be of course Edison and Ford and then there were the railroads, steel, oil. These people mostly received private loans or used their own money so they had much to lose if not successful and they wouldn't want to put their money into something they would see as failing. But today, the government plan is to give out government-backed guaranteed loans to really any company that is regarded as alternative energy, not even caring whether it is viable or realistic and Solyndra is a good example of that. When there is no risk and nothing to lose and failure is rewarded, where is the incentive to really come out with the breakthrough ideas? It seems they are truly setting us all up to fail.