The Galilean Dilemma: Why Academic Publishing Needs a Copernican Revolution

This paper argues that the current academic publishing system, despite claims of objectivity and scientific rigor, perpetuates the same authoritarian gatekeeping that once silenced Galileo's heliocentric theory. I examine systemic flaws in peer review, the impossibility of meaningful replication under current practices, and the proliferation of mathematical obfuscation masquerading as innovation. I propose radical reforms including the abolition of traditional peer review, mandatory open data requirements, and reader-driven quality assessment systems. While acknowledging the limitations of automated fact-checking (even Transformers can't detect a well-crafted lie), I advocate for a more democratic and transparent approach to scientific discourse.

 

A MetaArXiv moderator downloaded the manuscript, followed by another who rejected it with an empty string as justification.
This act of silent rejection exemplifies the bureaucratic instinct to suppress dissent without traceable accountability—precisely the pattern this paper critiques.