I think there's also an argument to be made that in fields where agreement with authority might hold more sway, there needs to be a public publishing outlet for

I think there's also an argument to be made that in fields where agreement with authority might hold more sway, there needs to be a public publishing outlet for "inconvenient" results. In chemistry, either the proposed path works or it doesn't. In squishier sciences (econ? archaeology? history? long-term fields like dietary and environmental sciences?), there's less ability for things that fly in the face of conventional wisdom to be provably correct solely on their content. Consequently, there's more ability to suppress them. Or at least apathetically ignore and not circulate them. And, to the point here, there's a lot more rocks lobbed at you when you're challenging the status quo that careers have been built on, versus following or supporting it. Nobody wants to be wrong about something they've staked decades on.