Papers that triumphed over their rejections

The imperfections of peer-review and editorial judgements are widely acknowledged; most of us know of very significant foundational scientific results that were rejected by the major journals and magazines but have nonetheless stood the test of time and proven of exceptional importance to science. The goal of this posting (work in progress) is to compile a list of such papers. I have limited the list below only to papers that proved to be exceptionally influential and for which there are traceable written accounts of their rejections. Although the discoveries described by most of these rejected papers have been awarded the Nobel Prize, this has not been a criterion in compiling this list nor will it be as I expand it. Suggestions are most welcomed!

The weak interaction (beta decay), 1933

Fermi, E (1934). An attempt of a theory of beta radiation. Z. phys, 88(161), 10.

Nature Editors: It contained speculations too remote from reality to be of interest to the reader

[Rajasekaran, 2014, page 20], Wikipedia

The Krebs cycle, 1937

Krebs, H, Johnson, WA (1937) The role of citric acid in intermediate metabolism in animal tissues. Enzymologia, 4, 148-156.

Hans Krebs: The paper was returned [from Nature] to me five days later accompanied by a letter of rejection written in the formal style of those days. This was the first time in my career, after having published more than fifty papers, that I had rejection or semi-rejection

[Krebs, 1981, page 98]
A year before Enzymologia published Kreb’s work, Nature published a welcome for Enzymologia that is remarkably relevant to our current concerns!

FT NMR, 1966

Ernst, RR, Anderson WA (1966) Application of Fourier transform spectroscopy to magnetic resonance. Review of Scientific Instruments, 37, 93-102.

Richard Ernst: The paper that described our achievements [awarded the 1991 Nobel Prize in Chemistry] was rejected twice by the Journal of Chemical Physics to be finally accepted and published in the Review of Scientific Instruments.

[Ernst, 1991]

The Cell Division Cycle, 1974

Hartwell LH, Culotti J, Pringle JR, Reid BJ (1974) Genetic control of the cell division cycle in yeast. Science 183:46–51.

John Pringle: Hartwell et al. (1974) was rejected without review by Nature, leaving a bad taste that has lasted…

[Pringle, 2013]

PCR, 1987

Mullis, KB, Faloona, FA (1987) Specific synthesis of DNA in vitro via a polymerase-catalyzed chain reaction, Methods in Enzymology, 155, 335-350.

Kary Mullis: I knew PCR would spread across the world like wild fire. This time there was no doubt in my mind: Nature would publish it. They rejected it. So did Science …  Fuck them, I said

[Mullis, 1998, page 105]

References

Ernst R. (1991) Biographical, http://www.nobelprize.org/

Krebs, H. (1981), Reminiscences and Reflections, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Mullis, K. (1998), Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, Vintage Books, New York

Pringle, J. R. (2013). An enduring enthusiasm for academic science, but with concerns. Molecular biology of the cell, 24(21), 3281-3284.

Rajasekaran, G. (2014). Fermi and the theory of weak interactions.Resonance, 19(1), 18-44.