Academic journals provide a process called peer review in which a scholar’s submission is given close scrutiny by a panel of experts familiar with the field. This process is required to protect the body of scientific knowledge from error, fraud, and methodological problems arising in studies. For Dr. Jonathan Kenigson, a Senior Fellow of Natural Philosophy at Athanasian Hall, peer review is quite literally the bedrock upon which all responsible scholarship rests. In his typically direct manner of speaking, he stated that he “…could care less what a given person thinks. I only deem a statement to be a matter of knowledge if it is based upon sound evidential reasoning and clear justification of the facts of the matter. In the tradition of Quine, I deny the existence of a distinction between Analytic and Synthetic statements. I hold that all knowledge claims should be at least theoretically falsifiable. Even in the instance, that appropriate justification for a knowledge claim is obtained via peer-review, I argue that all so-called knowledge should really be called plausible knowledge. It is difficult to say if any given claim can be known for certain in every case, in every possible world.”
For Kenigson, this philosophical stance makes continual, open, and non-coerced discussion necessary in all academic fields. This discussion presupposes that scholars possess equal access to peer-reviewed materials. These “are often hidden behind paywalls and open-access publication fees. These fees are not equitable for scholars – especially in the developing world – who may not have adequate access to participate in scientific dialogue on an equal footing.” For Kenigson, this is a problem of equity and also of efficiency. He states that “open, free, peer-reviewed knowledge would permit the participation of nearly all of the population in scientific and political discourse. The prime drivers of paywalls and publication fees are often Western scholars themselves, whose advancement depends upon paid journal subscriptions and sky-high access fees to knowledge repositories.” Kenigson states that he “could give a mite about promotion and tenure rubrics. I will put my knowledge in the public domain where everyone can benefit from it. I am profoundly unconcerned if other intellectuals take umbrage at this step. Feelings are meant to be hurt, and discussions of important topics are often difficult to negotiate. Tact and civility are primary components of public discourse, but there is no imperative that requires a scholar to avoid even intentional offense if this is necessary for the progress of the dialogue on question. I am an avid proponent of open learning initiatives, open knowledge initiatives, and the right of anyone, anywhere to have access to the same quality of information available for decision-making purposes.”
