There is a popular view that innovative papers are difficult to publish. Especially on the science net, this view is echoed, and almost no opposition can be heard. The basic reason for this view is: the more innovative the paper is, the greater the deviation from the mainstream theory or viewpoint will be, and the less likely it will be affirmed by the reviewers. This view holds that the longer scientists engage in research and accumulate more knowledge, the more they stick to the old theory, and thus the more serious the tendency to reject new ideas and new theories.

Is that right? Based on my own experience of more than 30 years of scientific research career, whether as an author, reviewer or editorial board member, my conclusion is just the opposite: innovative papers are not only easy to publish, but also very popular. The following four aspects to analyze.

1、 Innovative papers must first be serious scientific papers, which is the premise. A serious scientific paper, from theoretical conception, model establishment, mathematical derivation, to experimental design, data acquisition, programming simulation, data processing and other aspects and links, must work hard and seriously. If we just give the basic idea, and then use some abstract mathematical symbols or formulas to discuss it conceptually, this is not a scientific paper. As a reviewer or editorial board member, I have seen many so-called innovative papers. The reason for rejecting these papers is not because their arguments are novel, but because their arguments are superficial enough to support them to become serious scientific papers. Idea is cheap, and only a serious argument is valuable.

2、 Innovative papers are created on the basis of previous achievements, and they are part of the science building. There is no such thing as "out of the world". Even Newton was "on the shoulders of giants", not to mention us mortals. To make innovative achievements, we must first have a comprehensive and profound understanding (understanding, not understanding) of the most cutting-edge achievements of this discipline and related disciplines. Then, on this basis, innovative research is carried out to promote the development and leap forward of the discipline. In other words, it takes a lot of time and energy to read papers and classics. And, in the process of reading, ask yourself honestly: do I understand? Do I understand the details? If you can't get a positive answer, ask yourself: do I have the ability to make these truly innovative achievements? What aspects do I have to work hard for?

3、 The authors of innovative papers need long-term and arduous professional training and accumulation, and they are often the best talents at all stages along the way. The development of modern science is more and more detailed, and more and more professional foundation is needed to make a subject innovative achievement. Only when we have a deep understanding of these professional foundations, and have a good scientific research talent and savvy, can we really carry out innovative research. Aiming high and shouting slogans is the taboo of scientific innovation, and it can't achieve real innovative results.

4、 Innovative papers should be peer reviewed by the scientific community. When a paper is rejected, many people's first reaction is often that the reviewer is unfair, or the reviewer does not understand, and the real first to find the reason from their own side is a small number of people. In my more than 30 years of scientific research career, the rejection of papers is the norm. Every time a paper is rejected, I take it as an opportunity to improve it. Even in the case of poor reviewers who refuse to write because they can't understand the paper, I still think: how can I write more easily so that more people with less professional skills can understand it? As a result, most of my papers were published much longer than they were originally submitted, and the overall quality of my papers was much better. Therefore, I think peer review is a positive, positive and constructive process of scientific research. It gives the author some opportunities to rethink and make the content of the paper better.

In a word, real innovative papers are scarce and popular. If you really think you have pioneering achievements, then you should put your papers in the international mainstream journals of relevant majors, accept peer review from professional scholars, and make real gold.

Scientific research is "catching black cats in the dark room". Researchers can't decide what they catch. This is the natural law of scientific development. As for the cat we caught, it's innovative cat, original cat, subversive cat,..., and so on. Anyway, it's this cat. It won't change because it's given a nice name or an ugly name. Shakespeare said: what's in a name（ What's the name. Science building is built brick by brick by human, not "subversive". Some of these bricks and tiles have become pillars of support, and some have become auxiliary non bearing walls. However, no matter what their affiliation is, they are "originally of the same origin" and all originate from "the black cat caught in the dark room".

At the beginning of the new year, the waves remain the same. As serious scientists, we should be in awe of "innovation". We should respect the "craftsman spirit" of "one step at a time", do well in every research and write every paper. We should vigorously publicize that "catching a black cat in a dark room" is the natural law of scientific innovation, and create a scientific research atmosphere in line with the natural law of scientific development.

New year's weather: I hope ScienceNet will become better and better, and accept all rivers with a tolerant attitude. After all, this is a real name exchange platform for Chinese scientists all over the world.