Review as a Documented Cognitive Process: Toward a Reconsideration of Double-Blind Peer Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66659/4sn1qp19Keywords:
peer review, double-blind review, scholarly communication, cognitive process, interdisciplinary research, analytical uncertainty, documented discussion, ep-istemic transparency, normal science, editorial process, real-world problemsAbstract
The article presents a preliminary analytical reflection on the structural limitations of conventional double-blind peer review within contemporary scientific communication. The authors proceed from the assumption that peer review is gradually losing the characteristics of an observable cognitive and analytical process and increasingly functions as a relatively closed administrative mechanism of scholarly filtering. Particular attention is devoted to the partial nature of anonymity, the disappearance of documented scholarly discussion, the conservative role of institutionalized normal science, and the difficulties associated with the evaluation of interdisciplinary and analytically unstable research domains. As an alternative orientation, the article proposes understanding peer review as a documented collegial cognitive process based on analytical discussion, preservation of scholarly disagreement, participation of the author in the refinement process, and maintenance of an observable documentary trace of intellectual interaction.
References
1. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of re-searchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
2. Baldwin M. Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of peer review in the Cold War United States. Isis. 2018;109(3):538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070
3. Barzilai-Nahon K. Gatekeeping: a critical review. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol. 2009;43(1):1–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2009.1440430117
4. Bilhartz TD. 500 words or less: academic book reviewing in American history. Hist Teach. 1984;17(4):525–536. https://doi.org/10.2307/492908
5. Bod R, van Dongen J, ten Hagen SL, Karstens B, Mojet E. The flow of cognitive goods: a historiographical framework for the study of epistemic transfer. Isis. 2019;110(3):483–496. https://doi.org/10.1086/704673
6. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J Informetr. 2007;1:226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001
7. Bouterse J, Karstens B. A diversity of divisions: tracing the history of the demarcation between the sciences and the humanities. Isis. 2015;106(2):341–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/681995
8. Burnham J. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003
9. Derrick GE, Ross-Hellauer T. De-legitimising the social sciences and humanities through peer review. In: Oancea A, Derrick G, Nuseibeh N, Xu X, editors. Handbook of Meta-Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2024. p. 235–250. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839105722.00027
10. Enders J, de Boer H, Leišytė L. New public management and the academic profes-sion: the rationalisation of academic work revisited. In: Enders J, de Weert E, editors. The Changing Face of Academic Life: Analytical Comparative Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2009. p. 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242166_3
11. Forsberg E, Geschwind L, Levander S, Wermke W. Peer review in academia. In: Forsberg E, Geschwind L, Levander S, Wermke W, editors. Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia. Cham: Spring-er International Publishing; 2022. p. 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7_1
12. Gael P. The origins of the book review in England, 1663–1749. Libr Trans Bibliogr Soc. 2012;13(1):63–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/library/13.1.63
13. Gläser J, Serrano Velarde K. Changing funding arrangements and the production of scientific knowledge: introduction to the special issue. Minerva. 2018;56(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9344-6
14. Hansen HF. The many faces of peer review. In: Forsberg E, Geschwind L, Levander S, Wermke W, editors. Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Prac-tice of Gatekeeping in Academia. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7_5
15. Hicks D. Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation. High Educ. 2009;57(4):393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9154-0
16. Horbach S, Halffman W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
17. König T. Peer review in the social sciences and humanities at the European level: the experiences of the European Research Council. In: Ochsner M, Hug SE, Daniel HD, editors. Research Assessment in the Humanities. Cham: Springer International Pub-lishing; 2016. p. 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_12
18. Merriman B. Peer review as an evolving response to organizational constraint: evi-dence from sociology journals, 1952–2018. Am Sociol. 2021;52(2):341–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-020-09473-x
19. Murray D, Siler K, Larivière V, et al. Author-reviewer homophily in peer review. bi-oRxiv [Preprint]. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1101/400515
20. Partridge L. Celebrating 350 years of Philosophical Transactions: life sciences pa-pers. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1666):20140380. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0380
21. Ten Hagen S. Evaluating knowledge, evaluating character: book reviewing by Amer-ican historians and physicists (1900–1940). Hist Humanit. 2022;7(2):251–277. https://doi.org/10.1086/721313
22. Turner RS. The great transition and the social patterns of German science. Minerva. 1987;25(1–2):56–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01096856
23. Verbergt MG. Rigid criteria should not be established? A history of peer evaluation in European humanities funding. Serendipities. 2024;8(1–2):58–76. https://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v8i1-2.133995
24. Waltman L, Kaltenbrunner W, Pinfield S, Buckley Woods H. How to improve scien-tific peer review: four schools of thought. Learn Publ. 2023;36(3):334–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1544
25. Watermeyer R, Derrick GE, Batalla MB. Affective auditing: the emotional weight of the Research Excellence Framework. Res Eval. 2022;31(4):498–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac041
26. Nikolaenko D. Effective resistance of the scientific community to scientific innova-tions: the case of theoretical geography in the (post) USSR. Science and Science of Science. 2025;(4):49–69. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2025.04.049
27. Tymoshenko A, Nikolaenko D. The dual system of tuberculosis control in the USSR: an analysis of totalitarian fragmentation and the structural dynamics of the infectious process. Pollut Dis. 2026;1:79–108. https://doi.org/10.66659/pd.2025.004
28. Tymoshenko A. The mathematical modelling of the dual system of tuberculosis con-trol in the USSR: a mathematical analysis of the infectious process. Pollut Dis. 2026;1:109–138. https://doi.org/10.66659/pd.2025.005
29. Morton L. Transformation of soil and water properties in agricultural lands by mili-tary activity: perspectives and guiding principles for the reconstruction of war-ravaged agricultural lands and waters. Pollut Dis. 2026;2:43–64. https://doi.org/10.66659/pd.2026.004
30. Nikolaenko D. War and peace: the production of human environments. Pollut Dis. 2026;2:12–39. https://doi.org/10.66659/pd.2026.002
31. Nikolaenko D. Pollution, disease, and the escalating freshwater crisis: an integrated review of the Mississippi and Missouri River studies by K.R. Olson. Pollut Dis. 2026;2:5–11. https://doi.org/10.66659/pd.2026.001
