The Peer Review Paradox V2.0: Comparative Framework Analysis of Ten Historical Cases

History records several cases where scientific work which later got recognized as foundational was initially rejected, ignored, or dismissed by contemporary expert review. Well known examples include Einstein’s 1905 papers, Ramanujan’s early notebooks, and the development of non-Euclidean geometry. This paper examines ten such cases. We compare two ways of understanding them. Framework A asks whether the researcher experienced a condition where delay appeared costlier than action. Framework B asks whether the work met consensus standards at the time. Both frameworks are applied to the same ten historical records. The results show consistent patterns in when and why rejection occurred, and how eventual acceptance proceeded. The purpose is not to criticize individuals or institutions. Peer review has produced enormous scientific progress. The purpose is to ask whether our current methods for evaluating novel work have blind spots that history suggests are recurring. If such blind spots exist, identifying them would help improve the very system that science relies on. The ten cases provide data for that inquiry. The frameworks provide tools for asking the question in a structured way. We present the evidence and let readers assess which framework better explains the historical pattern.