THE SYSTEMATIC EPISTEMIC USURPATION IN BLIND PEER REVIEW

Abstract

Blind peer review is one of the validation mechanisms of contemporary science, but its structures of anonymity and opacity also produce vulnerabilities susceptible to epistemic capture. In this context, Blindpredation corresponds to the predatory use of editorial anonymity for privileged access to confidential manuscripts, while Manuscript theft refers to the full or partial appropriation of these manuscripts with subsequent publication under fraudulent authorship. The articulation between both configures what this paper defines as Systematic Epistemic Usurpation. The article aims to theoretically discuss this mechanism of usurpation within the blind peer review system, analyzing structural, procedural, and cultural dimensions, as well as its impacts on scientific communication. This qualitative research is theoretical-conceptual in nature and utilizes a bibliographic procedure, grounded in a literature review on scientific integrity, information ethics, and scientific communication. The results allowed for the construction of a conceptual model composed of a seven-stage cycle of Systematic Epistemic Usurpation, in addition to the systematization of fraud modalities, such as parasitic co-authorship, methodological expropriation, and data usurpation. Structural vulnerabilities were also identified, related to the opacity of peer review, the absence of authorship traceability, and the naturalization of unethical practices in hierarchical academic environments. The study concludes that tackling Systematic Epistemic Usurpation requires integrated interventions at the technical, normative, and pedagogical levels, including the expansion of editorial transparency, the strengthening of scientific integrity mechanisms, and the consolidation of institutional cultures guided by research ethics.