The hope is that peer review will reject or improve weak ideas, while the most important ideas will be published. Through publishing, these important ideas reach the top minds in the field—who can explore them further as stepping stones, and science can continue to march forward. But this system also creates several significant risks. ... So if a community isn''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''t cautious, it can stagnate as the gatekeepers play favorites and hold back progress.

It shouldn’t surprise us that somewhere lurking behind these concerns is the powerful force of objectives. Because they’re concrete and allow progress to be measured and encouraged, people tend to like guiding any search or process of discovery through objectives—and science is no different. It’s simply easier to demand the objective of a particular idea than to judge an idea without one. So when reviewers confront new ideas, it’s natural that questions about objectives will come to mind: What will these ideas accomplish? Will they lead to a particular objective? But the habit of focusing on objective-driven questions in scientific communities can produce unintended results, just as with other objective-driven activities.