How Moderation Makes Science: Precautionary Valuation and Boundary-Making in the Early Circulation of Research

Abstract

As preprint servers proliferate across scientific fields, moderation has emerged as a lightly structured form of gatekeeping that precedes—or bypasses—peer review. This article examines moderation as a site of precautionary valuation and boundary-making in the early circulation of research. Drawing on interviews with 14 individuals responsible for screening and oversight across 13 preprint servers, we analyze both the evaluative logics that organize moderation and the ways moderators themselves understand and frame their work. We find that credibility is enacted through precaution-driven threshold judgments—centering harm, trust, and community expectations—which determine whether a submission can responsibly circulate as scholarship. While moderators often reject the label of “gatekeeper,” our findings show that their work performs a subtle but consequential filtering that shapes what and who enters the scholarly record—even as servers work to distance these decisions from the domain of peer review. By tracing how precautionary judgments and boundary-making structure decisions about what enters circulation at the preprint stage, we contribute to STS debates on valuation, peer review, and the governance of scholarly communication in open science.