How peer-review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector

Area of Science:

• Science and Technology Studies
• Cognitive Science
• Scholarly Communication

Background:

• Traditional peer review is criticized for unreliability and inability to predict scientific impact.
• Peer review functions as a normative social process within scientific publishing.
• The cognitive aspects of peer review and their influence on knowledge creation are underexplored.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reframe peer review as a bio-cognitive system that constrains knowledge-making.
• To analyze how peer review practices shape the structure and content of scientific papers.
• To explore the cognitive functions and systemic nature of peer review in science.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of peer review as a social and cognitive process.
• Examination of scientific manuscripts as 'symbolizations' within technologically enabled activity.
• Case illustration of the paper's own content re-aggregation driven by peer review.

Main Results:

• Peer review practices constrain knowledge-making by authors, editors, and reviewers.
• Authors are prompted to recursively re-aggregate information to meet acceptability standards.
• The paper's own knowledge claims demonstrate how agonistic review influences argument structure and wording.

Conclusions:

• Peer review delimits what counts as scientific knowledge, impacting both traditional and post-academic science.
• Viewing peer review through a bio-cognitive lens reveals its role in distributed cognitive systems.
• The systemic nature of peer review is critical for defining scientific knowing.