undrendo on Nostr: Well, there are also positive sides. Edwin T. Jaynes <> had notorious difficulties in ...

Well, there are also positive sides. Edwin T. Jaynes <https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/etj.html>; had notorious difficulties in getting his Bayesian-theory papers published, because the "establishment" was largely anti-Bayesian at the time. Luckily he could get published at conference proceedings though.

...Which is a reminder that, in Galilean science, peer-review should be left to the reader – that's why it's called "peer". Otherwise we're back to pre-Galilean times with their Index Librorum Prohibitorum (which included important works by Kepler and Kant). Reviews and commentaries are welcome, but "rejection" (by two or three unknown people, which can scarcely be a representative sample of the whole scientific community) is anti-scientific. Luckily the internet has changed this situation.