In the scientific world, unfortunately, it seems that conformism is becoming an increasingly widespread phenomenon. Hypotheses confirmed by a single study quickly become examples for other authors who find a way to publish their work, perhaps differing only in a few respects, even if it adds little to what was already written in the initial published works, thus constituting veritable “scientific fads.” This phenomenon, which can be defined as true “scientific conformism,” then takes hold when one or more journals decide to adopt the assumptions of these theories, making them an integral part of their editorial line. This makes the initial approach more difficult to criticize, much less modify.
In fact, once a prestigious or highly regarded journal decides to incorporate those initial assumptions into its editorial line, perhaps for the purpose of increasing its readership, or for other purposes that are not always explicitly stated, subsequent proposals, if they diverge from the published studies, are often less likely to be accepted. However, if they converge with the journal’s line, they have a greater chance of being published, even if the scientific value of the works themselves is not truly relevant.
It is my own experience and that of other colleagues to have submitted scientific papers on controversial topics to well-known international journals, only to receive unconvincing responses for their failure to be published.
This situation reminded us, moving from the scientific world to the artistic world, of the late 19th century, when the canons of Art (with a capital “Art”) were staunchly upheld in Victorian England by a prestigious institution: the Royal Academy of Arts (RAA), which organized annual exhibitions of its best works. Artists had to first submit their works to the Royal Academy to be considered worthy of appearing in the exhibitions. In this way, a true elite of artists was formed who had access to RAA exhibitions and were recognized for this alone.
Their art, however, was rather conformist, entirely based on adherence to classical canons, devoid of anything new or original. This had caused considerable discontent among those who would later create an independent group: this group decided to exhibit in a different exhibition, entitled “Not the Royal Academy,” to emphasize their opposition to the prevailing conformism.
So, to emphasize our opposition to scientific conformism, we decided to call this section of the journal “Not the Lancet,” where we would publish original works, even based on bold theses, that had been rejected by the “mainstream.”
Lucio Sibilia and Stefania Borgo