In academia, the two most important sources of feedback scientists receive about their performance are the written evaluations following the submission of paper

In academia, the two most important sources of feedback scientists receive about their performance are the written evaluations following the submission of papers for publication and proposals for research funding. Unfortunately, in both cases, the peer review process rarely supports pursuing paths that sharply diverge from the mainstream direction, or even from researchers’ own previously published work. Hmmm. All referee reports I receive or write usually revolve around novelty of the idea. Incremental work gets published too, but not if it's only a small delta w.r.t. previous work.