I reproduce the key takeaway below and deserves a particular mention. I hate the academic gatekeeping because it hinders the democratisation of research and discovery. “Editorial discretion” is important in the process but it merits repetition- those are opinions which could “swing” either way. Agreed that no one would want to risk their necks out in the open or stake their scientific reputations on the cause. However, transparency is imperative, especially if academic publishing impacts human lives.
Editors in particular currently play a large role in determining which scientific work is worthy of attention, as they are a relatively small group of people with a deciding vote in the peer review process of a large number of articles. They are often referred to as gatekeepers for this reason (Crane ). Our proposal entails significantly decreasing both the prevalence and importance of this role. By replacing some of this importance with long-run credit, which comes from the scientific community as a whole, it makes the evaluation of scientific work a more democratic process.Is Peer Review a Good Idea? | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | Oxford Academic