An end to ‘God-like’ scientific knowledge? How non-anonymous referees and open review alter meanings for scientific knowledge

Abstract

In this paper I reflect on changing journal peer review practices and relations, and more particularly, on anonymity for referees and openness of review practices and relations. I explore how non-anonymity for referees and open access to journal peer review editorial judgements and decisions contribute to reshaping meanings for scientific knowledge. Anonymous referees and closed access to editorial documents had, until now, helped shape a meaning of objective and ‘God-like’ absolute knowledge. In contrast, more recent non-anonymous referee and open access dynamics have contributed to a new meaning of situated and partial scientific knowledge. I draw from scholarship on peer review, in legal studies, in the sociology of secrecy, and in the sociology of knowledge. I conclude that non-anonymous referees and open review practices and relations challenge ‘God-like’ scientific knowledge in secretive pre-publication journal peer review that, until now, has been instrumental for natural scientific and medical journal publication models that mostly sell scientific knowledge as news.