The reason I've brought up this question is due to the following observation.
Let's say, for instance, there is some field which is called "Specific Grand Theory". The field is quite minor and only A,B,C are the reputable experts regarding the field.
Reading some published papers from young researchers concerning the "Specific Grand Theory", someone observes every of those young researchers shows a gratitude to one of those A,B,C at the 'Acknowledgement' section.
So that 'someone' begins to suspect that whether there is an implicit rule in that field which demands for a young researcher to consult one of the experts before publishing his/her own paper to the field. Otherwise, that 'someone' should worry about the acceptance rate of his/her submitted paper for not getting stamped with authentication by the experts around the field.
The hypothetical situation I described above is similar to what I'm facing. I think that even assuming this kind of custom do exist in some fields, it shall vary field by field. The field I'm particularly interested is one of discrete mathematics. However, if you have your own experience with my question in your field, I would also like to hear your opinion.
I have an additional question. I may assume that the hypothetical situation I've described above exists, leaving aside whether it results from the custom in that subdiscipline or just a coincidence by the closeness of network.
Then, in the eye of journal editors, would not getting some authentication mark by the experts affect the credibility of the newly submitted papers compared to other papers which got its stamps from those experts?
I'm particularly concerning this, in mathematics, many of the papers are left unread if they give some air of crackpots.
I wonder the opinions from journal editors or reviewers whether not having some authentication mark unlike others will have possibilities to affect the credibility of the submitted paper in some minor fields.