A Review Worth Reviewing: Gatekeeping and Epistemic Stewardship in Peer Review of Planning Research

Planning research encounters an epistemological paradox: Although the field increasingly requires flexible, diverse, and adaptive forms of knowledge to address complex urban challenges, its primary evaluation mechanism—peer review in scholarly journals—remains constrained by restrictive gatekeeping practices. Drawing on our experience as authors and reviewers, we highlight three pressing debates: epistemic complexity, disciplinary silos in the peer review process, and societal relevance. These debates reflect scholarly standards meant to promote knowledge exchange but often become sites of exclusion. We propose reimagining peer review in planning research journals as epistemic stewardship, integrating gatekeeping with critique in a dialogic, pluralistic practice. Informed by debates between critical realism and antirealism, we outline three pathways forward: diversifying stewards, reforming supportive feedback, and fostering a culture of reviewer training.