[eeeeeeehio]

>The real test of a paper is whether it is cited and built upon by other scientists after publication. Many papers are published and then forgotten, or found to be flawed and not used any more.

This does seem true, but this forgets the downstream effects of publishing flawed papers.

Future research in this area is stymied by reviewers who insist that the flawed research already solved the problem and/or undermines the novelty of somewhat similar solutions that actually work.

Reviewers will reject your work and insist that you include the flawed research in your own evaluations, even if you’ve already pointed out the flaws. Then, when you show that the flawed paper underperforms every other system, reviewers will reject your results and ask you why they differ from the flawed paper (no matter how clearly you explain the flaws) :/

Published papers are viewed as canon by reviewers, even if they don’t work at all. It’s very difficult to change this perception.

[DiogenesKynikos]

If you get such a simple-minded reviewer, you can push back in your response, or you can even contact the editor directly.

Reviewers are not all-powerful, and they don't all share the same outlook. After all, reviewers are just scientists who have published articles in the past. If you are publishing papers, you're also reviewing papers. When you review papers, will you assume that everything that has ever passed peer review is true? Obviously not.