Science has become very competitive today and scientific publications reflect such competition. Innovation is of fundamental importance to advance science but often it faces fierce resistance from a scientific establishment that wants to maintain the status quo on their past achievements. This resistance is mainly due to reasons of career or politics, senior scientists who do not like to be proven wrong by younger ones or have their old theories discarded for new ones. No matter the evidence provided with rigorous scientific method, outsider and innovator scientists often have their scientific papers continuously rejected by anonymous peer reviewers chosen by some scientific editors who are part of the establishment. This does not necessarily mean that ALL the editors or the reviewers are politicized or belong to the establishment. However, the risk that scientific authors are hit by politicized editors and peer reviewers does exist and it is quite high. Many authors have suffered systematic bouncing from journal to journal before landing to one where unbiased peer review was finally ensured. Peer review should be a path towards the improvement of scientific articles and not to the systematic rejection of those unwelcome to the establishment. 

The solution is the abolition of anonymity in peer review. Reviewers willing to ensure a fair review should not have any problem in revealing their identity. We require a legislation that respects the rights of scientific authors for a fair and transparent peer review in which reviewers reveal first their identity before accepting the manuscript. Scientific authors have the right to check, appeal, and eventually reject peer reviewers who may potentially have scientific bias towards their scientific articles.