[ThinkPlease]

Your attitude is most unscientific. "Peer reviewed" journals publish that which repeats academic dogma or fashion; they will rarely publish views challenging academic dogma. In 1995, for example, tenured professors of sociology would ingratiate themselves to their peers, by standing up at faculty meetings, and bragging of not having read Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve.

Welcome to the physical sciences, you'll find that we're a little more picky than most. Here's a short list of new ideas that either made it or didn't into scientific journals. According to you, they shouldn't have made it there: Quantized redshifts(Tifft et al), non-cosmological redshifts(Arp, Burbidge et al), localization of Gamma Ray Bursts(many), Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould et al), and many, many more. If science were as you say it is, we'd still be waiting for lightning to strike a tree so that we could get fire.

[PatrickHenry]

... and many, many more ...

Continental drift, black holes, the big bang ...

[mrustow]

Here's a short list of new ideas that either made it or didn't into scientific journals.

Well, did they or didn't they?

The one item on your list that sounded familiar was "punctuated equilibrium (Gould et al)." That's not Stephen Jay Gould and his theory that killed evolution, in order to save it, is it?