Maintaining Standards or Gatekeeping the Academy? Reflections of Peer Review Experiences by Racially and Culturally Minoritized Scholars in Australia

ABSTRACT

Despite its widespread use for quality assurance within the academic publishing economy, the peer review process is significantly flawed, and to a large extent, “broken.” Emerging literature from researchers who work from marginalized cultural, theoretical, and political perspectives shows that while peer review processes are useful in upholding academic ethics and rigor, they can also be biased and exclusionary. This has led to vexing questions about how peer review processes function to discipline and police dissenting knowledges. The findings and reflections presented here are based on data collected from in-depth interviews with 23 early-career to senior-level self- identified racially and culturally minoritized (RACM) academics across a range of disciplines from 14 different Australian universities. The paper challenges the Eurocentric logic of the peer review system, arguing that it functions to maintain the status quo through valorization of Western ways of “knowing.” The data interpretation paints a picture of participant conversations about the impact of mean or destructive feedback, which is normalized within the current peer review model. The findings indicate that marginalized and minoritized researchers navigate the politics of peer review in diverse ways, ranging from conforming to resisting, and developing strategies to work around the rigid norms of this billion-dollar industry, all while striving to maintain the integrity of their research.

Gatwiri, K., Krupka, Z., & Abid, M. (2025). Maintaining Standards or Gatekeeping the Academy? Reflections of Peer Review Experiences by Racially and Culturally Minoritized Scholars in Australia Sociology Compass, e70079. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.70079