- #36
- 3,307
- 2,530
Bill McKeeman said:I think it is no accident that breakthroughs often come from the young or weirdos -- they are not yet entrapped in the warm and blinding company of their peers. We do not want to be bored by crackpots, and they surely would disrupt a forum designed to explain the scientific edifice, but we also do not want to miss a grand idea just because the presentation or presenter is rough around the edges.
Dale said:I don't think this has ever happened.
It depends on how big a threshold you have for a "grand idea."
My most widely cited paper was in a field I had never published in before. My PhD is in experimental atomic Physics, the paper was describing a hypothesis my wife and I developed in blast-related traumatic brain injury. We've offended lots of neuroscientists since then due to our rough edges and lack of knowledge regarding the secret handshake and subtle use of the language. But our hypothesis that the brain can be injured by the blast wave impacting the thorax has since been experimentally verified and stood the test of time.
Unlike many crackpot papers, my wife and I spent a long time and carefully reviewed a large volume of relevant literature while developing the idea and writing the paper. We considered carefully what kinds of experiments would be needed to test the hypothesis and whether there was already a convincing experimental disproof in the literature. We knew that there was a strong bias among experts in the field of brain injury (and medical community in general) that only insults to the head/brain can cause traumatic brain injuries. See: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4757.pdf
We knew through private communications and a review of the literature that our paper would likely be subject to strong biases in the peer-review process. As a result, we choose to publish it in a journal that was not peer reviewed (Medical Hypotheses) as well as arXiv. The follow-up paper where we estimated injury thresholds for the thoracic mechanism of blast-induced traumatic brain injury was published through a back door: a special issue of a journal reporting findings presented at a conference (as well as arXiv). The existing biases against the new idea would probably have otherwise prevented either paper from being published through the more traditional peer review process of submitting the paper to established experts. See: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.1508.pdf
Both papers have been widely cited, and the benefit of hindsight shows them to be basically right, although the threshold paper somewhat overestimated the blast pressure needed to produce a traumatic brain injury by impacting the thorax. The whole field of blast-TBI shows how wrong the experts can be. For many decades most of the brain injury experts scoffed at the idea of blast-induced TBI (shell shock) and mis-attributed all the symptoms to psychological effects and malingering.