The usage of the word goes back to a dialogue between @alabaeye and me. We found the topological terms used for scale-free networks often misleading and too technical (page 39). Terms like decentralized, distributed or federated are regularily used interchangeably, whilst each comes with different preassumptions.
A representational view and depiction of networks appears to be a top-down directed cognitive process, as it manifests a hierarchy of order constrained by the two-dimensional (diagrammatic) presentation. Its dialectical counterpart at the bottom-up side of the scale would then be an unconnected multitude of individual nodes never arriving at a consensus about a protocol to use.
The middle-out perspective of polycentrism offers us to look at many centres in the same time and makes no assumptions about connectivity. Because every independent node can be seen as a centre of its own, polycentric maps are hosted in many places.
This experience goes back to the understanding of Berlin as a multicentric city, where no single quarter dominates the existing others meaningfully.
Probably polycentralized would have been a more understandable neologism.