Science is as much a social conversation as it is a quest for new knowledge. An idea, no matter how novel, is unlikely to gain traction if it is presented as an isolated remark disconnected from the ongoing dialogue within a field. In contrast, a paper that makes only a modest contribution but engages meaningfully with the current conversation often finds acceptance.

At its core, science is a social process of verification where the goal is to convince a community with facts and logic. A scientific paper is not merely a record of discovery about nature; it is a rhetorical artifact designed to convince a community that an insight is valid, important, and relevant to existing concerns. Novelty alone is not enough. Editors and referees must be able to situate a new idea within familiar frameworks and established debates.

This dynamic means that even great geniuses (not me!) — those whose ideas are far ahead of their time — may initially be dismissed if their contributions cannot be easily situated within the prevailing discourse. Such breakthroughs often must wait years, decades, or even centuries before the scientific community is ready to recognize their significance.