Comprehensive examination of systemic suppression in scholarly work reveals barriers to critical voices and preprint moderation.
Key Points
Institutional gatekeeping prevents critical scholarly work from being published, leading to a lack of diverse perspectives in academia.
The analysis highlights that mainstream journals flood academia with conforming research, while excluding innovative works, contributing to systemic suppression.
A rigorous examination of peer review and preprint moderation shows that these gatekeeping mechanisms often operate under misleading notions of quality control.
Calls for genuinely open platforms for scholarly discourse indicate the need for reforms, promoting the publication of rigorous critiques against established norms.