Academic presses can kill controversial manuscripts when invited peer reviewers accept and then decline after seeing the content, leaving editors to cite lack of reviews or 'controversy' to terminate contracts. This procedural non‑engagement functions as de facto censorship without a public ban or rebuttal.
— It exposes a subtle gatekeeping mechanism in scholarly publishing that shapes which ideas reach the public and the historical record.
The press sent the Beauvoir manuscript to 26 reviewers; most backed out after seeing it, only one review arrived, and the 2025 contract was cancelled as 'too controversial.'