Indeterminacy, Indigeneity, Peer Review and the Mind–Body Problem

Abstract

Peer review is discussed from the perspective of different ways of making sense, most specifically, Immanuel’s Kant’s statement on the indeterminacy of radical translation. Ontological differences are examined with specific examples illustrating actual contestations, with some instances invoking indigeneity and self-knowing. The veracity of claims of racism and exclusion by allegedly hegemonic Western-dominated editorial boards of scientific journals is examined. Positivism is contrasted with relational thinking and just where ‘the body’ fits into scientific practice is discussed. Paradigm and paradigm shift as constituting the rules of peer engagement is proposed. The method is an autoethnographic one that draws on the author’s own experience as a journals’ editor analysing peer review issues via the prism of Western philosophy on the one hand, and the Subject-Object integration of indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) postulates on the other. Conspiracy theories are questioned and the conclusion is that both determinacies (Cartesian and IKS) need to generate new insights via dialectical engagements.

Peer review is academic citizenship

“…Finally, (5) peer review assists in the much vaunted objective of 'de-colonisation'. 8 As Ndlovu 1 observes, when African-based scholars evade peer reviewing duties, editors have to rely on their overseas colleagues who may be insufficiently familiar with local contexts.…”