[anonymouskimmer]

Wikipedia policy specifically says to not reference primary sources (e.g. published, peer-reviewed journal articles). Only secondary sources such as news articles referencing the papers. This is probably why your contributions are being rejected.

I haven't read the specific justification for this policy, but a couple of reasons is that it allows two rounds of review of the information prior to incorporation into Wikipedia, and that journal articles are typically more technical and thus more difficult for general Wikipedia editors to understand when checking whether the sources back up the claims in the Wikipedia article.

[swalling]

This is not correct at all.

The sourcing policy says: “If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.”

[anonymouskimmer]

When did they change that policy?

[swalling]

Peer-reviewed research papers have always been allowed in citations. The nuance that evolved over time is this "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." Meaning, you can cite a research paper, but something more secondary that summarizes a body of scholarship would be better.

Individual research papers that haven't been reproduced often present conflicting results with one another, especially in fields with poor quality research like nutrition. Experts often run into this issue when they try to cite their own research or a narrow set of papers in a given field, especially when recent research conflicts with prior scientific consensus. It's why tptacek's comment above is apropos.

[mrguyorama]

They never did. You can't use YOUR OWN work as a source, but you can use primary sources.

[jimmaswell]

> You can't use YOUR OWN work

Bad rule, I'd just use an alt or not my own name.

[ckoerner]

Which is also against the rules and undermines the systems in place to make the encyclopedia more reliable.