“Which arguments deserve attention?”

Suppose Scholar A argues:

“Lincoln's policies should be understood partly through nineteenth-century debates about constitutional authority.”

The argument engages:

major historical debates;

extensive primary sources;

existing scholarship;

relevant evidence.

Therefore scholars may consider it significant.

But Scholar B makes a different argument.

Suppose B says:

“Lincoln's actions were caused entirely by one obscure factor.”

But B:

provides almost no evidence;

misunderstands primary sources;

uses an inappropriate method;

ignores major counterevidence.

Scholars may ignore B.

That isn't necessarily gatekeeping in the problematic sense.

It may simply be normal scholarly evaluation.

My important distinction

If B's argument is ignored because it is genuinely methodologically inadequate, that is not necessarily unfair exclusion.

But if B's argument is rejected because it challenges a dominant interpretation despite meeting comparable methodological standards, then you have a potentially interesting case of institutional or disciplinary gatekeeping.

That distinction has to be demonstrated rather than assumed.