“Science is Not for You and Service is Not for Me”: a mixed methods study of epistemic exclusion in peer review

Heightened scrutiny in peer review of scholarship that challenges dominant perspectives has made it harder for scholars engaged in such work to contribute to advancing knowledge. In this study, we highlight how biases in the peer review process contribute to epistemic exclusion – the devaluing of marginalized scholars as legitimate producers of knowledge as well as the systematic dismissal of non-traditional forms of scholarship including, qualitative, identity-focused, localized, non-positivist, or non-generalizable research. We do so by characterizing some of the most commonly reported forms of epistemic exclusion conveyed in journal article peer reviews. Using a mixed-methods approach, we examined the review experiences of 74 researchers who conduct research with human participants by considering the relationship between manuscript subject matter and author social identity and the relative incidence of different types of exclusionary feedback authors received. Then, using participants’ reports of specific instances of problematic reviewer feedback, we identified assumptions underlying reviewer and editor comments. Significant associations among distinct types of epistemic exclusion were found based on authors' English-speaking status, racial identity, and sexual orientation. A reflexive thematic analysis uncovered an overarching theme , Science is not for you and service is not for me, and four additional themes: (1) I know science better than you , (2) My people are better than yours , (3) I can't be bothered to teach you and (4) What's in it for me? These findings suggest the need for educational programs aimed at unpacking and challenging reviewer and editor assumptions that contribute to biased and negative reviews, and ultimately to epistemic exclusion.