  This essay delves into the ethical dilemmas encountered within the academic
peer review process and investigates the prevailing deficiencies in this
system. It highlights how established scholars often adhere to mainstream
theories not out of genuine belief, but to safeguard their own reputations.
This practice perpetuates intellectual conformity, fuels confirmation bias, and
stifles dissenting voices. Furthermore, as the number of incorrect papers
published by influential scientists increases, it inadvertently encourages more
researchers to follow suit, tacitly endorsing incorrect viewpoints. By
examining historical instances of suppressed ideas later proven valuable, this
essay calls for a reevaluation of academia's commitment to genuine innovation
and progress which is usually achieved by applications of fundamental
principles in from textbooks.
