Invisible Gatekeepers: Intellectual Monopolies in Scientific Publishing

Science depends on expertise. However, science has always advanced by questioning its own assumptions. The greatest threat to innovation in companion animal nutrition isn't bad science or a poor formulation; it is the rigid concentration of influence that determines which formatting, methodologies, and questions are permitted into the conversation.

Scientists entrust editors, reviewers, and senior researchers with safeguarding scientific rigor and ensuring that published work meets high standards of quality. In principle, peer review serves as one of science's greatest strengths: a system designed to challenge ideas, identify weaknesses, and improve the quality of scientific knowledge. Yet, within highly specialized disciplines, expertise can become concentrated in unexpected ways. 

Serving as an editor or as a reviewer can sometimes be a thankless and, more often than not, pro bono job. This can lead to a bottleneck; individuals can simultaneously serve as journal editors, associate editors, conference organizers, grant reviewers, guideline authors, and/or mentors to the next generation of scientists. Individually, each role is appropriate and necessary; collectively, they may create an unintended concentration of influence over what research is published, funded, discussed, and ultimately accepted as scientific consensus.

This is not necessarily the result of misconduct or malicious intent but rather an unintended consequence of how modern scientific fields are structured to promote expertise and leadership. The question is not whether these experts are qualified, but whether the system’s cracks are widening as the pool of experts called upon dwindles. This has led to a relatively small number of individuals exerting disproportionate influence over the direction of an entire field.

The Small-Field Paradox

As scientific disciplines become increasingly specialized, the pool of individuals qualified to evaluate research naturally shrinks. The expertise required to advance a field, in some circumstances, may also create conditions that limit intellectual diversity. In many niche disciplines, researchers repeatedly encounter the same individuals throughout their careers and often rely on each other’s work to progress the field. This interconnectedness is not necessarily problematic. Collaboration, familiarity, and cumulative knowledge are essential for scientific progress. But as these networks become increasingly interconnected, the boundaries between independent scientific roles can begin to blur.

An editor at an animal science journal may also serve as an associate editor for a veterinary nutrition journal, sit on a nutritional organization committee, review conference abstracts for a comparative nutrition conference, or contribute to corporate research.

These overlapping responsibilities are often unavoidable. Companion animal nutrition features relatively limited Board-Certified Veterinary Nutritionists, fewer specialized veterinary technicians, relatively few companion animal PhD scientists, and a handful of Board-Certified Companion Animal Nutritionists globally. Of those nutritionists, even fewer are volunteering in editorial roles.

The concern is not that any individual role is inappropriate. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of these overlapping responsibilities that deserves consideration. Over time, a small number of individuals may inadvertently become “gatekeepers” of what constitutes valid companion animal research.

The result is a paradox: The very expertise that propels pet nutrition forward may also limit its ability to challenge itself.

When Consensus Becomes Self-Reinforcing

Scientific consensus is essential. It allows researchers to build upon existing knowledge rather than constantly revisiting foundational questions. Without consensus, scientific progress would be impossible. However, consensus can become self-reinforcing.

A hypothesis gains acceptance, leading to additional publications. Those publications generate citations, which can inform feeding guidelines, such as those set by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) or the European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF), and influence funding priorities. Subsequent research naturally builds upon those established foundations. Over time, alternative hypotheses may encounter increasing resistance, not because they lack merit, but because they diverge from established narratives, and the systems designed to preserve scientific rigor may inadvertently begin preserving scientific consensus itself.

This dynamic is not unique to science. Behavioral research has repeatedly demonstrated that humans favor familiar information and established frameworks. Scientists, despite their training, are not immune to these cognitive tendencies.

Conflict of Interest or Concentration of Influence?

Scientific publishing has become increasingly effective at identifying and managing conflicts of interest (COI). Researchers routinely disclose financial relationships, consulting agreements, patent holdings, and/or industry partnerships that could influence the interpretation or presentation of scientific findings, and these disclosures are essential.

Conflicts of interest answer a specific question: Could an individual's personal or financial interests influence their scientific judgment? Whereas concentration of influence asks a different question: How much influence does a single individual have over the trajectory of a scientific field?

These are not interchangeable concepts, as a researcher may have significant conflicts of interest while holding relatively little influence over a discipline. Conversely, a researcher may have no identifiable conflicts of interest while simultaneously occupying multiple positions that shape what research is published, funded, discussed, and ultimately accepted as scientific consensus. This is not evidence of wrongdoing from a broader viewpoint but highlights a structural vulnerability that may become increasingly important as scientific disciplines become more specialized and, thus, a smaller pool of experts exists.

When Existing Safeguards Fall Short

Many journals allow authors to request that specific individuals not be invited to review their manuscripts for various reasons, such as when authors have concerns about prior collaborations, direct competition, or perceived conflicts. In theory, these safeguards should help preserve fairness during the review process. In practice, however, their effectiveness may be limited within highly specialized scientific disciplines.

Journals operate within large publishing groups, and niche scientific fields often rely on a relatively small pool of subject-matter experts to serve in editorial roles. As a result, the same individuals may oversee multiple journals within a publishing group.

This creates an important distinction: authors may have the ability to exclude specific reviewers, but they often have little visibility into or influence over the broader editorial network that shapes the evaluation process. In some instances, editorial decisions, including desk rejections, occur before a manuscript ever reaches external peer review, which can save potential reviewers time and resources by avoiding the review of a paper that may not meet the required scientific rigor. However, and consequently, safeguards designed to address reviewer-level conflicts may not fully account for concentrations of influence that exist earlier in the publication pathway.

It is not whether safeguards exist, but whether they adequately account for the concentration of influence that may arise when a small number of individuals occupy multiple decision-making roles across a scientific community. 

The consequences often extend beyond individual manuscripts. Researchers are constantly asked to adapt to their environments when hypotheses are not supported or when research outcomes are unexpected. However, early-career scientists and veterinary researchers quickly learn which questions are safe to ask and which topics are considered taboo or career-limiting. Over time, many researchers avoid pursuing studies that challenge established dietary paradigms. The choice is rarely driven by a lack of curiosity or evidence, but rather by the realistic perception that the barriers to publication and subsequent funding are insurmountable.

For example, imagine a scientist preparing a grant proposal to investigate whether a widely accepted nutritional recommendation should be re-evaluated using newer methodologies. Although the hypothesis is scientifically plausible and the proposed methods are rigorous, mentors advise narrowing the project or reframing the hypothesis to better align with current thinking because it is perceived as more likely to receive funding and, ultimately, to be published. The original question is never tested, not because it lacked scientific merit, but because the researcher judged the likelihood of success within the current system to be too low.

Science does not stop progressing because ideas are unsupported. It slows when ideas are never investigated in the first place. Perhaps the greatest consequence of concentrated influence may therefore be invisible.

We cannot measure the discoveries that were never pursued, the hypotheses that were abandoned, or the young scientists who chose safer research paths.

Potential Solutions

The problem is rather nebulous to someone who has never tried to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, but to researchers who investigate the taboo topic or begin to question the status quo through pilot studies, it feels heavy.

As it stands, the opportunity for scientific growth is grim if the gatekeepers exist. So, how do we overcome this?

1. Fully blinded and diversified editorial pathways: While double-blind peer review is common at the reviewer level, the internal editorial board (which holds the power to issue immediate desk rejections) frequently sees the authors' names, institutions, and corporate backing. Therefore, implementing fully blinded editorial screening for initial submissions would ensure that research is judged purely on its methodology, data, and scientific merit.
2. Standardized disclosures for “gatekeepers” (the reviewer COI): Scientific publishing strictly demands that authors disclose every financial tie, grant, and consulting fee. Yet, the individuals evaluating the manuscripts are rarely held to the same standard of immediate transparency during the evaluation process. By establishing a reciprocal disclosure system, this allows novel ideas to rise. If an editor or reviewer holds an advisory seat for a specific pet food conglomerate, sits on an influential guideline committee, or manages funding portfolios for legacy brands, these overlapping roles must be transparently balanced. Journals should set healthy caps on the number of simultaneous decision-making roles a single individual can hold within a specialized niche to prevent a monopoly on consensus.
3. Dedicated pathways for emerging researchers: Relying solely on a dwindling pool of well-renowned, senior experts creates an echo chamber. It also discounts the valuable perspectives of early-career scientists. Encouraging these individuals to step into research reviewing roles allows for novel concepts to emerge.

Small changes, but for the betterment of rigorous research and information sharing, seem completely reasonable. Will we, as a collective research community, acknowledge this problem and tackle it head-on like our thesis work, or will we continue to let the narrowing of experts drive the future of our field.

Conclusion

Peer review remains one of science's most important institutions. Yet, science has always advanced by questioning its own assumptions. The greatest threat to innovation may not just be flawed experiments or fraudulent data but also the quiet concentration of influence that determines which questions are permitted to enter the scientific conversation at all.

Healthy scientific communities require dissent, competing hypotheses, uncomfortable questions, and the willingness to challenge prevailing narratives. Most importantly, they require systems that ensure no individual, regardless of expertise, becomes an invisible gatekeeper of scientific progress. 

The goal of scientific publishing should not be to protect consensus or an individual’s own research but to continually test whether consensus deserves to endure.

Follow us on LinkedIn for the latest updates on all things happening here at BSM Partners.

About the Authors

Dr. Stephanie Clark is a board-certified companion animal nutritionist, veterinary nurse and nutrition specialist, a pet owner, and a mother who had a baby during the formula shortage. She has spent the past almost two decades dedicating her career to the welfare of pets, livestock, and wildlife. She currently provides nutritional consultations for veterinary clinics and works in the pet food industry.