Given that new ideas in a field often get reviewed by incumbents in said field (due to the requirements of pre-publication peer review) this can certainly delay their uptake or even full examination.

This kind of ingrained conservatism can delay progress both of a field and those examining it. It is a catch-22 as you want qualified reviewers to examine a paper so it isn't bunkum but equally those reviewers may slow it down because it is a valid advance in contrary to their position.

Perhaps a move to post-publication peer review and greater pre-print deposition would help, but that would take a deep cultural shift.