Decolonizing peer review: disrupting academic gatekeeping and reclaiming knowledge production

Purpose The author of this paper critically examines peer review as a colonial artifact that privileges Western epistemologies while marginalizing non-Western and Indigenous knowledge systems, arguing that it functions as an epistemic gatekeeper, systematically excluding diverse ways of knowing. Design/methodology/approach In this conceptual paper, the author employs critical theoretical analysis grounded in decolonial theory and critical epistemology, synthesizing interdisciplinary literature to analyze how linguistic hegemony, methodological gatekeeping and citation politics reinforce epistemic hierarchies. The analysis demonstrates particular relevance to qualitative research communities, as positivist peer review biases disproportionately marginalize qualitative methodologies alongside non-Western knowledge systems. Findings The author demonstrates that dominant peer review practices institutionalize Western epistemologies through linguistic exclusion, methodological policing and citational hierarchies. They identify Latin American bibliodiversity and African Ubuntu-based models as viable, community-centered approaches challenging colonial structures. However, implementing these alternatives requires careful attention to context-specific risks, including protecting intellectual contributions and ensuring appropriate anonymity safeguards where power imbalances exist. Social implications The author encourages academic institutions, journals and scholars to implement inclusive peer review policies including multilingual review, recognition of oral and community-based validation, diversified editorial boards and decolonial funding mechanisms, benefiting both non-Western knowledge traditions and qualitative research communities. Originality/value In this paper, the author reframes peer review as a site of epistemic violence and advocates for tangible, pluralistic interventions. By documenting existing alternative models while acknowledging implementation challenges, they provide practical pathways toward equitable knowledge production.