Critical essay: Blinding faith – Paradoxes and pathologies of opacity in peer review
Human Relations · 2022 · Volume 75 · Issue 9
DOI: 10.1177/00187267211016752
Abstract
The standing and progress of science depends upon confidence in the evaluation of knowledge claims. This essay affirms the value of peer review as a ‘gold standard’ but argues that its efficacy for scientific progress is, on balance, diminished by blinding. It reflects critically upon the anomaly between an ethos of openness that is widely held to define scientific work, and the opacity institutionalized in reviewing and editorial processes, with specific reference to the field of management and organization studies. The anomaly is attributed to the operation of asymmetrical relations of power in the establishment and reproduction of evaluation processes. The proposed means of mitigating the anomaly, and thereby improving manuscript evaluation, is movement in the direction of more open peer review.
Keywords
anonymity, asymmetrical relations of power, blinding, confidentiality, editorial practice, ethical principles, evaluation processes, secrecy
Enable JavaScript for citation tools and additional paper interactions.