Is groundbreaking research controversial during peer review?

Groundbreaking research is disruptive. Novel, trailblazing papers can have a hard time during traditional peer review by being misjudged by editors and/or referees who may be too conservative or entrenched to appreciate their transformative potential. In these situations, negative opinions from experts can impede innovative research, delay scientific progress, and derail promising careers in science. We explore this effect by combining data analytics from anonymized referee databases with case studies of classic papers. We discuss whether referee discord during peer review can be used as a flag for potentially transformative papers.