The majority doesn't have to but journals should. The majority will pick it up if and when someone has proven its utility above and beyond current techniques.

The majority doesn't have to but journals should. The majority will pick it up if and when someone has proven its utility above and beyond current techniques. However, it should be noted that most "radically new" ideas are neither radical nor new. And it would be more or less accurate to label a vast swathe of them as "nonsense" although I'd prefer to use a term with a less pejorative connotation. The difficulty comes in sorting out the "nonsense" from the genuinely new ideas. This takes expertise and time. It's easier to use a quick heuristic to weed out those most likely to be "nonsense" so you can spend the time on better prospects. Of course that heuristic is unlikely to be perfect. Admittedly I can't speak to ML specifically but I assume the same applies to it as it does to many other areas.