Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing

The Failure of Double-blind Peer Review


  • Geoffrey Boyd



Indigenous Knowledges, Scholarly Publishing, Peer Review, Whiteness, Systemic Racism


At its core, academic knowledge production is predicated on Western notions of knowledge historically grounded in a Euro-American, White, male worldview. As a component of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing shares the same basis of Whiteness. It excludes knowledge that doesn’t conform to White, Western notions of knowledge, forces conformity to (and therefore reinforcement of) a Western standard of writing/knowledge, and leads to a reverence of peer-reviewed literature as the only sound source of knowledge. As a tool of scholarly publishing and the editorial process, blind peer review, though perhaps well-intentioned, is fraught with problems, especially for BIPOC researchers and writers, because it fails in its intended purpose to drastically reduce or eliminate bias and racism in the peer review and editorial processes; shields peer reviewers and editors against accusations of bias, racism, or conflicts of interest; and robs BIPOC, and particularly Indigenous, writers and researchers from having the opportunity to develop relationships with those that are reviewing and publishing their work.




How to Cite

Boyd, G. (2021). Indigenous Knowledges and Scholarly Publishing: The Failure of Double-blind Peer Review. Pathfinder: A Canadian Journal for Information Science Students and Early Career Professionals, 2(1), 34–40.