Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science

This study critically examines peer review, academic bias, and scientific integrity in the field of microwave absorption research. The paper documents how mainstream publications routinely ignore well-known opposing theories, reject manuscripts without concrete evidence, and perpetuate practices that resemble cargo cult science. Drawing on journal rejection correspondence, ethical guideline, and insights from public intellectuals such as Eric Weinstein and Richard Feynman, the analysis highlights systemic flaws in current peer review processes. The argument is made that present peer review serves more to safeguard the reputation of mainstream scientists than the reputation of science itself. Real peer review, in contrast, begins only after a paper has been published—when the broader scientific community can engage with and challenge the work. Proposed reforms emphasize transparency, evidence-based rejection, and the restoration of scientific integrity. The study emphasizes William Penn's principle that "right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it," particularly relevant when mistakes from majority, big figures, and prestigious journals cannot be criticized.