Research with Epistemology: Are We Really Following the Scientific Method?

Epistemology underpins the scientific method by clarifying what counts as knowledge, which forms of evidence are admissible, and how procedures can legitimately support conclusions. Under accelerated publishing conditions, these assumptions are often left implicit, which can weaken the inferential coherence of peer-reviewed manuscripts. This study aimed to model reviewers’ perceived epistemological deficiencies as a multidimensional construct with an overarching global component. A 14-item instrument covering four latent domains was administered to 183 peer reviewers from a Latin American academic network. A second-order structural equation model was estimated using SEM with DWLS (lavaan). The model showed excellent fit (CFI ≈ 1.00; RMSEA = 0.000; SRMR = 0.033) and strong factor loadings, indicating a coherent global factor alongside distinct domain-specific components. Reviewers’ accumulated experience was positively associated with the global factor (β = 0.047; p = 0.013), whereas the recent volume of reviews was not statistically significant (p = 0.254). These results suggest that epistemological scrutiny may reflect more stable evaluative competencies than short-term reviewing activity. The instrument can inform editorial rubrics and reviewer training aimed at strengthening problem–theory–method coherence and reflexive methodological justification. Because the measure captures perceptions within a single regional network, further validation across disciplines and cultural contexts is recommended.