International Journal of Communication 20(2026) De-westernizing Communication and Media Studies
Surveying Gatekeepers:
Journal Editors’ Perceptions, Responses, and Attitudes Toward De-Westernizing Communication and Media Studies
FRANCISCO PAULO JAMIL MARQUES[1]
SUJATHA SOSALE
BRIAN EKDALE
BINGBING ZHANG
University of Iowa, USA
This study surveys 110 editors from first- and second-quartile journals indexed in Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports to examine how they evaluate and respond to calls to de-westernize and diversify communication and media scholarship through the inclusion of Global South perspectives and scholars. The findings show that editors concerned with geographic imbalances in academic knowledge production identify persistent challenges, such as unconvincing or poorly structured response letters, that contribute to lower acceptance rates for manuscripts by Global South–based scholars. Beyond constraints related to English-language proficiency, limited research funding, and underresourced institutional infrastructures, respondents further point to reviewers’ epistemological biases as a significant barrier—one that requires active editorial oversight, but has become difficult to address amid expanding editorial responsibilities. At the same time, a minority of respondents argue that prioritizing geographic diversity may undermine journal standards, emphasizing peer review as a strictly quality-based process independent of authors’ geographic location.
Keywords: academic journals, communication studies, de-westernization, Global South, journal editors
Francisco Paulo Jamil Marques: [email protected]
Sujatha Sosale: [email protected]
Brian Ekdale: [email protected]
Bingbing Zhang: [email protected]
Date submitted: 2026-02-17
Communication and media studies have increasingly been called on to confront the challenges of de-westernization to establish themselves as a genuinely global intellectual field. A growing body of research has exposed enduring disparities in publication and citation practices across leading journals, where institutions, methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and scholars from the Global North continue to dominate (Chan et al., 2021; Livingstone, 2007; Sobel Cohen, 2022; Waisbord, 2022). This dominance is reflected in a publication and peer review culture that systematically disadvantages certain forms of research and scholarly networks, particularly those situated in the Global South (Chakravartty et al., 2018; Dimitrova & Palmer, 2025; Ekdale et al., 2022; Marques et al., 2025; Mohammed, 2022).
In response to concerns about global knowledge production, leading journals such as the Journal of Communication have introduced reforms to broaden editorial leadership, including more diverse teams of editors in chief and an expanded cohort of associate editors appointed to reflect geographical, methodological, and epistemic diversity (Ewoldsen et al., 2023). Similarly, Communication Theory has pledged to internationalize theoretical frameworks by de-westernizing epistemological foundations and foregrounding context in theory building (Matthes, 2024). Waisbord (2025) conceptualizes this orientation as a “cosmopolitan imagination,” a form of globality that recognizes the foreign as an essential condition of contemporary life rather than a novelty or an exception (p. 411). From this perspective, scholarly evaluation acknowledges the flows of migration and ideas between the Global North and the Global South instead of presuming a static or hierarchically privileged position of the North.
While this growing awareness marks an important shift in scholarly discourse, it has not meaningfully challenged the structures that sustain Western hegemony in communication and media studies (Demeter, 2020; Hanusch & Vos, 2020). Gondwe, for instance, argues that African scholarship reveals key limitations in Waisbord’s (2025) cosmopolitan imagination and prompts consideration of how cosmopolitanism might be grounded in African contexts. Calling for “account[ability] . . . to a continent that is so often theorized but rarely theorized from” (Gondwe, 2025, p. 421), he highlights the persistent marginalization of non-Western epistemic perspectives. At the same time, scholars in peripheral and semiperipheral regions continue to encounter significant obstacles to publishing in high-impact journals, including language demands, restricted access to international networks, inadequate funding, and weak institutional support (Albuquerque, 2021; Albuquerque et al., 2020; Demeter, 2018; Gondwe, 2025; Marques et al., 2026). The continued dominance of U.S.-based editorial boards further entrenches these geographic and epistemic inequalities (Goyanes & Demeter, 2020; Mainardes et al., 2012).
Against this backdrop, the present study examines the perspectives of editors in chief and associate editors of leading journals in communication and media studies about efforts to de-westernize, with particular attention to the structural challenges facing scholarship from the Global South. The overarching question that informs this study is: How do editorial practices and perceptions reflect broader dynamics of gatekeeping, power, and field-defining processes in academic publishing, particularly in relation to Global South scholarship?
Journal editors occupy a pivotal yet often underexamined position in academic publishing. As Bhopal et al. (1997) describe, editors are the guardians of research publication quality, shaping how knowledge is legitimized, disseminated, and institutionalized within academic communities (Wellington & Nixon, 2005). As both gatekeepers and informed observers of disciplinary trends, editors are “exposed to more papers in their respective disciplines than most other scholars” (Madden et al., 1995, p. 77), which enables them to comment on emerging norms, methodological rigor, and the evolution of scholarly standards. Moreover, although peer reviewers offer recommendations, editors ultimately make the final publication decisions and serve as central agents in constructing academic legitimacy and authority in their fields (Bourdieu, 1988; Randell-Moon et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, acknowledging editors’ relevance “does not tell us about how actual decisions about publications are made” (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2013, p. 388). Most studies addressing academic publishing focus on reviewers—scrutinizing their biases or evaluation criteria—while the actual decision-making processes remain opaque (Goyanes & Demeter, 2020; Hirschauer, 2015). The scarcity of robust empirical research on journal editors and their perceptions limits an understanding of how scholarly knowledge is curated, legitimized, and circulated, particularly in fields marked by restricted geographic diversity. By foregrounding editorial practices as a central object of analysis, this study argues that closer attention to editorial work can illuminate the social, communicative, and institutional dynamics of academic publishing, thereby enabling critical inquiry into power, gatekeeping, and the politics of knowledge production.
Our study surveys 110 editors-in-chief and associate editors serving journals classified in the first- and second-quartile (Q1 and Q2) tiers of the Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Clarivate, 2024) within the communication category to determine how they perceive, respond to, and evaluate calls to diversify authorship. We also asked participants to share their perspectives on challenges that might lead to lower acceptance rates of manuscripts submitted by authors in the Global South.
This study advances knowledge in communication and media research by addressing structural asymmetries in scholarly publishing through four main contributions. First, it draws attention to a diverse set of actors directly involved in the gatekeeping processes that determine which scientific findings circulate within the field’s elite spaces. Second, by analyzing the perceptions, responses, and attitudes of journal editors, the study uncovers previously unreported divergences among those shaping disciplinary boundaries. Third, the findings highlight the distinct challenges faced by countries in the Global South, which necessitate flexible, context-sensitive solutions. Ultimately, the article offers actionable recommendations for journals to address the structural factors that perpetuate inequities in knowledge production and dissemination.
Literature Review
Journal Editors as Gatekeepers and Their Decision-Making Processes
Peer-reviewed journals are the primary venue through which scholars disseminate research findings and engage in specialized debates, building academic careers, fostering credibility and cohesion within research communities, and shaping disciplines and subfields (Randell-Moon et al., 2011; Richards & Wasserman, 2013). Understanding the academic publishing process is therefore essential for scholars seeking academic appointments, research funding, and advancement through tenure and promotion (Hogler & Gross, 2009; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2013).
Although government policies, funding agencies, publishers, scholarly associations, authors, and reviewers all play distinct roles in academic publishing, journal editors remain central to the process. Richards and Wasserman (2013) describe editing as a craft requiring a clear understanding of a journal’s intellectual mission, the careful selection of peer reviewers, and nuanced engagement with their evaluations. Similarly, Randell-Moon and colleagues (2011) and Roth (2006) highlight that editors are not merely gatekeepers of scholarly quality; they operate at the nexus of multiple responsibilities—overseeing manuscript submissions, orchestrating peer review processes, shaping editorial direction, and upholding ethical standards.
In fulfilling these roles, editors act as agents of disciplinary boundary maintenance, implicitly or explicitly reinforcing dominant ideological, epistemological, methodological, geographical, and political paradigms. Far from being neutral actors, they shape the epistemic and ethical boundaries of scholarly fields, reinforcing disciplinary norms and hierarchies (Madden et al., 1995; Randell-Moon et al., 2011; Wellington & Nixon, 2005). Editorial decisions, therefore, have lasting implications for a journal’s legitimacy and the broader credibility of academic gatekeeping (Merton, 1968; Zuckerman & Merton, 1971).
Nevertheless, journal editors’ authority has attracted sustained scholarly scrutiny. While peer review has been criticized for providing limited constructive feedback, delaying publication, and sometimes discouraging early-career scholars through harsh evaluations (Roth, 2006), editorial oversight has been faulted for reinforcing disciplinary conservatism, privileging established paradigms, and promoting methodological orthodoxy (Atkinson, 1994). Given their considerable autonomy and limited external oversight, editors often act as investigators, adjudicators, and final arbiters within their journals (Lipworth & Kerridge, 2011). Such opacity raises ethical concerns, positioning editors and reviewers as key gatekeepers of scholarly standards and potentially undermining fairness, transparency, and accountability in research dissemination. As a result, peer review may serve not only to ensure quality but also to preserve entrenched academic hierarchies and advance individual or collective agendas (Lipworth & Kerridge, 2011).
One such hierarchy is geographic, as reflected in stark publication disparities between the Global North and Global South (Demeter, 2020). The underrepresentation of Global South scholars among journal editors and editorial board members further concentrates decision-making authority in the Global North (Goyanes & Demeter, 2020). Over a decade ago, Richards and Wasserman (2013) surveyed journal editors and found that questions surrounding the publication of Global South scholarship were the “most contentious issue raised in this study, and the one most likely to become politicised in the future” (p. 834). This raises the question of whether current editors and associate editors view the issue similarly and how they respond to it.
Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South
This article adopts Demeter’s (2020) definition of the Global South as comprising countries and regions that are “geopolitically dependent, typically colonized and historically exploited” (p. 9). Despite critiques that the terms “Global North” and “Global South” oversimplify heterogeneous realities, these categories continue to exert significant influence in humanities and social science scholarship (Neubert, 2022; Roy, 2023). As Kürzdörfer and Narlikar (2023) note, alternative labels such as “middle powers” or “global swing states” do little to resolve internal diversity and may instead obscure states’ agency by defining them in relation to dominant powers (para. 4). Accordingly, this analysis employs the terms “Global North” and “Global South” as analytically useful, albeit imperfect, markers for examining asymmetries in global academic publishing.
In the context of global academic inequities, scholars based in the Global South have historically faced structural barriers, including limited access to robust research infrastructure and up-to-date scholarly resources, that curtail productivity and hinder meaningful participation in international academic dialogues (Richards & Wasserman, 2013). Compounding these material constraints are linguistic and institutional pressures that further marginalize non-Western scholars. As Randell-Moon and colleagues (2011) note, the dominance of anglophone publishing conventions often acts as a gatekeeping mechanism, excluding contributions from scholars whose work does not conform to the linguistic and stylistic norms of English-language journals.
Despite persistent structural and epistemic challenges, scholars working in the Global South have often adapted to the dominant frameworks that characterize mainstream scholarly discourse (Chan et al., 2021). This process involves framing locally grounded case studies in ways that speak to theoretical debates shaped by intellectual traditions rooted in the United States and Western Europe. As Scherlen (2020) observes, this dynamic compels researchers from non-Western contexts to publish in and seek validation from journals predominantly headquartered in the Global North, reinforcing a narrow set of scholarly norms and priorities.
In aligning their work with these expectations, scholars may inadvertently contribute to the marginalization of alternative epistemologies. The imperative to conform to the thematic and methodological preferences of editors, reviewers, and audiences situated in the North can lead to a homogenization of scholarly output—one that privileges intellectual continuity over innovation and consensus over contestation (Demeter, 2020). The cumulative effect is a scholarly ecosystem that systematically privileges certain voices, paradigms, and geographies while rendering others peripheral. This asymmetry distorts the global circulation of knowledge and undermines the potential for genuinely pluralistic and dialogic academic engagement (Hogler & Gross, 2009; Marques et al., 2025; Richards & Wasserman, 2013).
In the face of these discrepancies, some highly ranked journals in the field have launched initiatives to address geographic imbalances on their pages. The editors of Digital Journalism, for example, have sought to provide more opportunities for scholars based in non-Western regions, which include elevating scholars in the Global South to associate editor positions (Hess et al., 2022). In 2023, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly established a Global South Mentorship Program to offer guidance to Global South scholars on publishing in peer-reviewed journals (Dimitrova, 2023). However, it is unclear whether communication and media journal editors agree that there is a geographic imbalance in the field; which challenges they face in processing scholarship from the Global South; and what, if anything, they are doing to address these challenges. Therefore, we ask the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent do journal editors and associate editors perceive an imbalance between Global South and Global North scholarship in their respective journals?
RQ2: What are the primary challenges identified by journal editors and associate editors in manuscripts submitted by Global South–based authors that contribute to their lower acceptance rates?
RQ3: Which strategies, if any, do journal editors and associate editors believe will help address perceived imbalances between Global South and Global North scholarship in their journals?
Method
This study draws on a survey of 110 editors-in-chief and associate editors from journals (see Appendix A)[2] ranked in Q1 and Q2 of JCR to interrogate how they perceive, respond to, and evaluate calls for greater inclusivity in authorship, particularly about scholars based in Global South countries.[3] Editors were selected as key informants because of their pivotal role in academic publishing. In addition, the journals they represent are among the most prestigious in the field, spanning its major subfields and shaping the trajectories of knowledge production across communication and media studies.
We then systematically reviewed each journal’s website to compile a comprehensive list of editors-in-chief and associate editors as of December 2024, which yielded an initial data set of 581 names. Duplicate entries—resulting from individuals holding editorial roles across multiple journals—were removed, resulting in a final list of 562 unique academic professionals. The team then located institutional e-mail addresses for each editor using publicly available information on journal websites and affiliated university pages. When institutional contact details were unavailable, publicly listed commercial e-mail addresses (e.g., Gmail, Hotmail) were used as a secondary source of contact.
Respondents were not asked to report their names or affiliated journals. That is, the survey was intentionally designed to preserve their anonymity and encourage candid reflections on editorial practices and perceptions. Before data collection, Institutional Review Board approval was obtained to ensure full compliance with ethical standards governing research involving human subjects.
Data collection was conducted via an online survey administered in Qualtrics, with responses collected between July and August 2025. All identified editors received an e-mail invitation outlining the study’s purpose and scope, along with a secure link to the survey. To enhance response rates, two reminder messages were sent: the first two weeks after the initial outreach and the second three weeks after the first reminder.
Of the 562 unique e-mail addresses compiled for editors and associate editors in the study corpus, nine invitation messages were repeatedly undeliverable across three separate attempts, indicating those contacts were inactive or invalid. As a result, the maximum number of potential respondents was adjusted to 553. From this refined pool, the research team received 169 survey responses. At the conclusion of the response period, respondents who did not complete the survey were excluded, whereas those who completed the survey, but skipped some questions, were retained. Ultimately, the investigation is based on 110 valid responses, representing a response rate of about 20%.
Although response rates in online surveys are often debated, prior research shows they do not compromise the quality of scholarly inquiry (Cummins et al., 2023; Nulty, 2008). In this context, a 20% response rate represents a meaningful outcome given the specialized profile of participants in this study. First, editors and associate editors of top-ranked journals constitute a highly specialized group with global academic prestige, which naturally restricts access because of their concurrent professional responsibilities. Second, our respondents possess advanced expertise in both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. As such, even minor disagreements about the phrasing of survey questions or the structure of response options may have led participants to withdraw from the study. For instance, despite our clarification of the conceptual framework adopted for the Global North and Global South, some scholars remain resistant to this binary classification. Third, the ease of distributing online questionnaires has led to an oversupply of survey invitations, fostering respondent fatigue and contributing to a sustained decline in response rates. Lastly, given that this research project did not offer any form of compensation, we consider the response rate achieved after three rounds of invitations to be the upper limit of what could reasonably be expected.
At the outset of the survey, participants were provided with a definition of the Global South, adapted from Demeter (2020), to ensure conceptual clarity and consistent interpretation. The questionnaire was organized into five thematic sections (see Appendix B).[4] The first section collected demographic information, while the second focused on participants’ editorial experience and engagement with scholarship from the Global South. The third section addressed patterns of manuscript submission and acceptance. In the fourth section, participants responded to Likert-scale items assessing their perceptions and editorial practices. All constructs were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), unless otherwise noted. Finally, the fifth section comprised open-ended questions inviting editors to reflect on their concerns and actions about geographic diversity in academic publishing. Open-ended responses varied in length from a few words to several sentences. To analyze data for each open-ended question, we followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guidelines for inductive analysis of semantic themes, which include data familiarization, initial coding, and theme identification and refinement. Summaries of these themes, as they relate to our three research questions, are provided below. Together, these five components combine quantitative analysis with qualitative insights into editorial decision-making practices.
Although objective indicators (e.g., submission volumes, authors’ institutional affiliations, and the geographical focus of manuscripts identified by keywords or abstracts) are typically available in editorial management platforms such as ScholarOne Manuscripts, we opted to request editors’ perceptions of Global South submissions for several reasons. Not all journals use the same management systems or possess comparable internal analytic tools. Even when such data are available, they are often proprietary and cannot be shared with external researchers. Moreover, editors differ in their familiarity with extracting and filtering these data, and many may have been reluctant to acquire the requisite technical expertise solely for participation in this project. Surveying editors and associate editors, as they engage with submissions daily, thus offers a practicable means of obtaining informed, albeit necessarily limited, insights.
Results
The results reveal variation in the editorial structures of academic journals in the field, particularly in the number of editors and associate editors involved in the peer-review process. While some outlets centralize editorial authority in a single editor in chief, others distribute responsibilities across a broader team. To illustrate, when compiling our comprehensive list of individuals serving as editors in chief and associate editors, we discovered that, among the 112 periodicals included, the number of editors and associate editors per journal ranged from 1 to 25 (M = 5.14, Mdn = 4.00). This dispersion underscores the heterogeneity in editorial governance models, which may have significant implications for the consistency of manuscript evaluation processes.
Of the 110 participants in our study, 55.5% identified as female, 38.2% as male, and 6.4% chose not to disclose their gender identity. In terms of racial and ethnic identification, 65.5% of participants identified as White, followed by Asian (10%), Hispanic or Latino (9.1%), Black (1.8%), and Native American (0.9%). The average age was 49.70 (SD = 10.88), and the average number of years of experience in journal editing was seven (SD = 7.53). On average, participants reported having coauthored 3.56 publications (SD = 6.56) with at least one scholar from the Global South over the last five years. In addition, 69.7% did not have any part of training in a Global South country, while 19.3% had formal training (PhD, master’s, BA) in a Global South country, and 11% had at least a short-term visit (visiting scholar, research mission, etc.) in a Global South country. Nearly half of the participants (47.12%) resided in the United States, followed by 8.65% in Spain and 5.77% each in Australia and the United Kingdom. The remaining participants were distributed across 19 additional countries (see Appendix C).[5] Notably, 104 participants reported their country of residence, but six of the valid responses (N = 110) skipped this question.
Perceived Imbalance Between Global South and Global North Scholarship
RQ1 examined participants’ perceptions of a scholarly imbalance in the academic journals they edit, favoring contributions from the Global North over those from the Global South. Quantitative scores for the relevant survey items are reported in Table 1. Of note, most agreed they have seen the number of submissions from Global South–based authors increase during their time as editor (M = 5.43, SD = 1.39), as well as the number of accepted manuscripts from Global South–based authors (M = 4.95, SD = 1.402). Most of the editors also indicated that publishing articles authored by scholars based in the Global South has contributed to broadening their journal’s readership (M = 5.02, SD = 1.30) and that they would be comfortable publishing more than one article about the same Global South country in a regular (i.e., not special) issue (M = 5.86, SD = 1.29).
Table 1. Perceived Imbalance Between Global South and Global North Scholarship.
|
|
During my time as editor, I have seen the number of submissions from Global South–based authors increase. |
During my time as editor, I have seen the number of accepted manuscripts from Global South–based authors increase. |
Publishing papers authored by Global South–based scholars has broadened our journal’s audience. |
I would be comfortable publishing more than one article about the same Global South country in a regular (i.e., not special) issue. |
|
1. Strongly disagree |
2 (2.0%) |
2 (2%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
|
2. Disagree |
3 (3.0%) |
5 (5.1%) |
3 (3.1%) |
2 (2.1%) |
|
3. Somewhat disagree |
4 (4.0%) |
5 (5.1%) |
6 (6.3%) |
3 (3.2%) |
|
4. Neither agree nor disagree |
10 (10.1%) |
21 (21.4%) |
28 (29.2%) |
12 (12.6%) |
|
5. Somewhat agree |
25 (25.3%) |
28 (28.6%) |
23 (24%) |
11 (11.6%) |
|
6. Agree |
32 (32.3%) |
25 (25.5%) |
21 (21.9%) |
28 (29.5%) |
|
7. Strongly agree |
23 (23.2%) |
12 (12.2%) |
15 (15.6%) |
39 (41.1%) |
|
Valid n |
99 |
98 |
96 |
95 |
In open-ended responses to our question about whether respondents were concerned about the lack of scholarship from the Global South, most indicated some concern, though subthemes revealed participants’ doubts about their own or their journal’s ability to address this imbalance. Several claimed they already have too many responsibilities to devote significant attention to this issue (e.g., “Trying to balance many demands as an Editor, which is a volunteer position, and publishers have pushed more work onto editors [e.g., copyediting] that makes it more challenging to increase representatives of scholarship”). Others argued the problem is systemic and bigger than anything editors can solve. For example,
I am concerned . . . However, I also believe the problem is primarily “upstream” of the journals themselves. The inequities in academic publishing often stem from the different levels of resources, training, and socialization among Global South–based institutions, making it more difficult for Global South authors to get published in top journals.
A few also indicated they were encouraged by positive changes over time, even if “the situation is improving . . . not as quickly as would be good.” Finally, a few participants pushed back against the premise of our questions. For example, one wrote, “Seeking geographic diversity would be a disservice to the journal and the discipline,” while another defended the journal review process as “fair and based solely on the quality of the submission, regardless of the author’s geographic location.”
Challenges for Scholarship Publishing by Global South–Based Authors
The second research question examined the challenges participants identified in increasing scholarship published by authors based in the Global South. Quantitative scores to relevant survey items are reported in Table 2. Of note, most editors reported that finding suitable reviewers to evaluate papers from Global South countries was more difficult (M = 4.83, SD = 1.67), with 25.3% somewhat agreeing, 21.1% agreeing, and 17.9% strongly agreeing with this statement. Moreover, many editors observed that articles published in their journals originating from or addressing the Global South tend to attract fewer readers than those focusing on the Global North (M = 3.76, SD = 1.17), with 46.6% somewhat agreeing, 10.2% agreeing, and 6.8% strongly agreeing with this statement. While 52.3% of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that publishing papers from or about the Global South leads to fewer citations, more respondents agreed than disagreed with that statement (M = 4.17, SD = 1.17).
Table 2. Challenges for Publishing Scholarship by Global South–Based Authors.
|
|
Finding suitable reviewers to evaluate papers from Global South countries is more difficult. |
Publications in our journal from and about the Global South receive fewer readers than publications from and about the Global North. |
Publications in our journal from and about the Global South receive fewer citations than publications from and about the Global North. |
|
1. Strongly disagree |
3 (3.2%) |
5 (5.7%) |
2 (2.3%) |
|
2. Disagree |
8 (8.4%) |
9 (10.2%) |
5 (5.7%) |
|
3. Somewhat disagree |
11 (11.6%) |
18 (20.4%) |
9 (10.2%) |
|
4. Neither agree nor disagree |
12 (12.6%) |
41 (46.6%) |
46 (52.3%) |
|
5. Somewhat agree |
24 (25.3%) |
3 (3.4%) |
15 (17%) |
|
6. Agree |
20 (21.1%) |
6 (6.8%) |
8 (9.1%) |
|
7. Strongly agree |
17 (17.9%) |
6 (6.8%) |
3 (3.4%) |
|
Valid n |
95 |
88 |
88 |
In an open-ended question, participants were invited to reflect on whether, and to what extent, manuscripts authored by scholars based in the Global South exhibit recurring problems that contribute to lower acceptance rates. The most common theme was writing quality, with participants citing poor prose, grammatical mistakes, typographical errors, and not following the journal’s style. For example, two editors responded, “Writing (structure and flow) is quite poor” and “Writing is often flawed and not polished.” Other participants claimed that submissions from the Global South often fail to adhere to their journals’ expectations for academic writing. For example, one participant said, “Scholars from this region sometimes struggle to ‘master the grammar’ of scholarly writing (per elements of APA style in the organization and documentation/citation style undergirding submissions).”
Beyond writing concerns, responses suggest there is not a discrete number of shared issues among Global South submissions, but rather many varied concerns, including outdated literature reviews, methodological weaknesses, shallow analysis, and a lack of theoretical contribution. Some participants named all the above: “relatively unsophisticated theorizing; reliance on out-of-data literature; relatively unsophisticated methodologies; and not clearly articulating the generalizable versus the context-specific contributions of the research.” At the same time, some participants noted these concerns are not exclusively an issue for Global South authors (e.g., “Almost all submissions are rejected, from all origins, due to the lack of a relevant contribution, or issues with argument and methods. That’s true also for authors in the North”), while others acknowledged that “quality” is not an objective measure (e.g., “Assessments about the ‘quality’ of a given submission are [at least in part] cultural artifacts . . . Editors, editorial board members, etc., might all have a very similar perspective on what constitutes ‘quality’ given their shared training and backgrounds”). In some cases, respondents offered specific critiques that presented opportunities for authors from the Global South to refine their submission strategies. For instance, several participants noted these scholars are frequently desk-rejected because their manuscripts do not align well with the journal’s scope or thematic focus. As one participant wrote, “Many scholars outside the U.S. do not fully understand the focus of our journal, which means the submissions are [not] a good fit, topic or method-wise.” Another reported that Global South scholars were less skilled at responding to reviewers when invited to revise and resubmit a manuscript. As one participant wrote:
Even in cases where the revision is solid, their response letters are often not so well crafted as, for instance, those of U.S. authors. Some reviewers obviously read only response letters, so a “less skillful” response letter tends to be evaluated as an indicator of poor revision.
These responses about journal fit and inadequate response letters offer opportunities for Global South scholars to improve their chances of publication.
Nevertheless, not all concerns expressed by respondents involved aspects that Global South scholars could directly control. In particular, several responses highlighted reviewer bias as an impediment to the publication of manuscripts submitted by Global South authors. As one respondent wrote, by asking Global South scholars to justify their geographic case selection, “We tend to be colonial in the lens that we take to evaluate manuscripts from the Global South.” Another editor wrote that when Global South authors “attempt a kind of location-agnostic perspective characteristic of Global North papers . . . they are often read by reviewers as critically naive or under-sourced.” This respondent called this situation “a tragedy,” adding, “It really is a hegemony!” These concerns about reviewer bias also raise questions about what editors and associate editors themselves are doing to address them.
Strategies to Address Imbalances Between Global South and North Scholarship
RQ3 examined which strategies, if any, journal editors and associate editors believe are effective in addressing perceived imbalances between scholarship from the Global South and the Global North. Quantitative scores to relevant survey items are reported in Table 3. Most editors indicated they do not adapt their journal review process based on the geographic home of the manuscript author (M = 3.03, SD = 1.91), with 29.1% strongly disagreeing with this statement. Similarly, most editors indicated they do not adapt their journal review process to the submission’s geographic focus (M = 3.38, SD = 1.96), although 37% at least somewhat agreed with this statement. Although most participants reported not altering the review process, most indicated they deliberately seek to assign reviewers based in the Global South to evaluate manuscripts submitted by authors from this region (M = 4.84, SD = 1.59).
Table 3. Review-Process Considerations for Global South Submissions.
|
|
We adapt our journal review process based on the geographic home of the manuscript author. |
We adapt our journal review process based on the geographic focus of the submission. |
I try to assign Global South–based reviewers to assess Global South–based papers. |
|
1. Strongly disagree |
32 (29.1%) |
27 (27%) |
3 (3.1%) |
|
2. Disagree |
17 (15.5%) |
15 (15%) |
11 (11.3%) |
|
3. Somewhat disagree |
9 (8.2%) |
9 (9%) |
3 (3.1%) |
|
4. Neither agree nor disagree |
19 (17.3%) |
12 (12%) |
14 (14.4%) |
|
5. Somewhat agree |
9 (8.2%) |
20 (20%) |
29 (29.9%) |
|
6. Agree |
9 (8.2%) |
13 (13%) |
25 (25.8%) |
|
7. Strongly agree |
5 (4.5%) |
4 (4%) |
12 (12.4%) |
|
Valid n |
100 |
100 |
97 |
Our survey also asked about the final decision-making process when reviewing manuscripts. Relevant quantitative scores are reported in Table 4. When deciding whether to accept a manuscript, most editors reported they do not consider the author’s geographic home (M = 3.21, SD = 1.97), with 32.4% strongly disagreeing with this statement. Conversely, when deciding whether to accept a manuscript, most editors consider the paper’s geographic focus (M = 4.12, SD = 1.95). Interestingly, most editors characterized the encouragement of submissions from Global South countries as a distinctive feature of their journal’s editorial mission (M = 4.52, SD = 1.57), with 24.5% somewhat agreeing, 11.7% agreeing, and 13.8% strongly agreeing.
Table 4. Decision-Making Considerations for Global South Submissions.
|
|
When deciding whether or not to accept a manuscript, I consider the geographic home of the author. |
When deciding whether or not to accept a manuscript, I consider the geographic focus of the paper. |
Encouraging submissions from Global South countries is a distinguishing characteristic of our journal. |
|
1. Strongly disagree |
33 (32.4%) |
15 (15%) |
3 (3.2%) |
|
2. Disagree |
14 (13.7%) |
13 (13%) |
9 (9.6%) |
|
3. Somewhat disagree |
7 (6.9%) |
7 (7%) |
8 (8.5%) |
|
4. Neither agree nor disagree |
12 (11.8%) |
13 (13%) |
27 (28.7%) |
|
5. Somewhat agree |
23 (22.5%) |
23 (23%) |
23 (24.5%) |
|
6. Agree |
9 (8.8%) |
20 (20%) |
11 (11.7%) |
|
7. Strongly agree |
4 (3.9%) |
9 (9%) |
13 (13.8%) |
|
Valid n |
102 |
100 |
94 |
Furthermore, we conducted an independent-samples t-test to examine mean differences between male and female editors’ opinions across all statements in Tables 1–4 above as an exploratory analysis (see Appendix D).[6] We found a significant difference between male and female editors in their opinions on “When deciding whether or not to accept a manuscript, I consider the geographic home of the author.” Specifically, female editors (M = 3.66, SD = 1.20) considered the author’s geographic home more than male editors (M = 2.83, SD = 1.93), t(94) = -2.10, p = .039. In addition, we ran bivariate analyses of training background, years of editorial experience, prior collaboration with Global South scholars, and the opinion statement, which are presented in Tables 1–4 and also reported as an exploratory analysis (see Appendix E).[7] We found that those who received more training in a Global South country were more likely to collaborate with Global South–based scholars in the last five years (r = .471, p < .001). Receiving more training in a Global South country is positively related to agreement with the statement “Encouraging submissions from Global South countries is a distinguishing characteristic of our journal” (r = .318, p = .002).
In separate open-ended questions, participants were asked whether they had implemented any measures to address publication inequities in their journals and to share recommendations for future editors. Two primary themes emerged concerning journal-wide policy initiatives and individualized strategies employed during the review of submissions either focused on the Global South or authored by Global South–based scholars. At the journal level, many respondents emphasized the importance of diversifying representation in journal administration by recruiting scholars from the Global South to serve as associate editors, editorial board members, and manuscript reviewers. Several participants also noted their journals had recently published special issues aimed at engaging scholars from the Global South. Others recommended that future editors prioritize publishing special issues that foreground perspectives, topics, and authors from these regions. Participants also described initiatives specific to their journals, such as internal audits of authorship, adopting format-free submission processes, and hosting publication workshops in “low submission [geographic] areas.” While some respondents indicated they did not engage in any intentional efforts and did not believe such efforts were necessary, others advocated for more proactive measures, such as prioritizing studies with data collection in underrepresented regions and introducing publication quotas.
Participants also described several submission-level practices they adopt when evaluating manuscripts from Global South–based scholars. These included assigning reviewers with relevant regional expertise and offering mentorship to support manuscript development before formal peer review. Several respondents advised future editors to refrain from using writing quality as a critical criterion in the initial evaluation process, with one noting, “We need a more formalized process to help non-English scholars receive feedback and suggestions in their native language to aid with translation issues.” Others warned future editors against rejecting submissions from the Global South because of an excessive number of “fixable issues,” emphasizing that such cases call for greater editorial leniency. Editors and associate editors also suggested ways to improve the reviewing process, such as choosing “encouraging reviewers” and being more self-reflexive when writing their comments: “Sometimes I ask myself, would I write this comment if the study were done in the U.S.? This might be a good practice to catch our own biases.”
Among the strategies currently employed by some journals to mitigate imbalances in communication and media scholarship, one noteworthy example involves editors who reported giving special consideration to manuscripts submitted from the Global South. For instance, one respondent noted, “In borderline cases where the decision whether to reject a manuscript or allow the authors to revise and resubmit hung in the balance, we exercised a modicum of editorial discretion in favor of manuscripts from/about Global South countries.”
Similarly, another respondent wrote they consider submissions from the Global South “with more than usual sympathy and invest more than usual effort in advising authors how to improve their manuscript.” This same scholar wrote they considered implementing a special program designed to assist first-time authors from the Global South, but “after reflection and discussion—[I] decided against it as it would appear to be—and actually would be—disrespectful and patronizing.” Their experience suggests a delicate balance that some editors and associate editors hope to strike—being proactive about perceived inequities in journal publishing without reinforcing the structural issues they seek to address.
Discussion
This study examined how editors and associate editors of leading communication and media journals view inequities in knowledge production and the de-westernization of scholarly literature. Prior studies point to a range of factors that sustain uneven publication opportunities (Dimitrova & Palmer, 2025; Marques et al., 2025; Mohammed, 2022; Sobel Cohen, 2022), from assumptions that scholarship from the Global South falls short of prevailing academic standards to geopolitical asymmetries that shape the circulation, visibility, and legitimacy of knowledge (Richards & Wasserman, 2013). These structural dynamics are further reinforced by biases in peer review, including methodological preferences and implicit judgments linked to reviewers’ individual characteristics (Chan et al., 2021; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2013).
Findings on our first research question suggest that most editors are concerned about geographic imbalances in scholarly knowledge production. This aligns with the recent discourse on globalizing communication scholarship, in which editors of prominent journals argue for embracing greater variety in scholarship grounded in context and alternative epistemologies (Ewoldsen et al., 2023; Matthes, 2024; Waisbord, 2025). Several participants reported meaningful improvement in recent years, suggesting the inclusion of scholarship from the Global South has fostered a broader, more diverse readership. By contrast, some respondents maintained this issue is not an immediate priority on their editorial agendas. In fact, a few argued a manuscript’s merit should serve as the sole basis for editorial decisions. Although this view claims to uphold academic rigor, it overlooks the fact that definitions of “merit” are not necessarily objective but are constructed within existing disciplinary frameworks and guided by norms that often privilege certain voices while marginalizing others. By treating these standards as neutral, the approach restricts diversity and perpetuates systemic inequities by limiting the scope of perspectives that enter scholarly debate (Bosch, 2025). For example, mainstream journals risk marginalizing alternate epistemologies emerging from oral culture and forms of communication such as rumors, as Gondwe (2025) argued in the case of Africa.
Although many participants estimated that the number of published articles by scholars based in the Global South has increased, such papers still tend to be fewer in number compared with their Global North counterparts, with the exception of notably larger numbers of papers from China, which several participants discussed in their open-ended responses. Indeed, the growing presence of China-based researchers in journals in the field of communication and media has been noted in various studies (Comel et al., 2024; Demeter, 2018), underscoring the need to reiterate the internal heterogeneity among countries in the Global South.
Despite these perceptions of forward progress, findings from our second research question indicate that several key challenges remain in manuscript submissions from the Global South, including difficulties in securing appropriate reviewers, instances of “colonial” bias among reviewers, limited readership for published articles, and lower citation rates. Respondents also noted content-related concerns, such as alignment with the journal’s scope, quality of research writing, adherence to stylistic guidelines, and issues related to theoretical framing and methodological rigor. While respondents are aware of these issues, they acknowledge that identifying and implementing solutions remains challenging. Indeed, several respondents stated that individual journals, on their own, are unable to resolve structural barriers that hinder the participation of authors from the Global South.
At this point, it is possible to more clearly distinguish the types of challenges faced by authors based in different regions of the Global South. For instance, Global South scholars who were trained at Global North institutions are more likely to be acculturated to the dominant norms of prestigious journals that “police particular ideological, epistemological, methodological, geographical or political boundaries” (Randell-Moon et al., 2011, p. 226). Similarly, researchers affiliated with institutions in countries such as India or Nigeria, where English is an official language, may encounter fewer linguistic barriers than scholars based in Latin America. Nonetheless, respondents indicated that contributors across the Global South share common difficulties, such as writing response letters that meet reviewers’ expectations. Because tasks like crafting response letters are part of the “hidden curriculum” that largely benefits those near to or in positions of power, this finding offers journals an opportunity to increase transparency and clarify guidelines for reviewer expectations.
Findings of our third research question reveal several strategies participants have adopted to make their journals more accessible to Global South scholars. Examples include publishing special issues focused on geographical regions, diversifying representation on editorial boards, sponsoring mentoring programs, organizing workshops for scholars from regions with low submission rates, and adopting format-free submission processes. While existing initiatives represent meaningful efforts to broaden participation from the Global South, they may not fully address the structural dynamics that shape global scholarly exchange. By focusing primarily on individual capacity or procedural adjustments, these measures can inadvertently overlook deeper systemic factors (such as established prestige networks and language practices) that influence patterns of inclusion and recognition in academic publishing. It is also worth noting that journals are slightly more likely to adapt their policies based on the geographic focus of the submission than on the author’s geographic home, which may advantage Global North scholars researching the Global South over Global South scholars studying the Global North.
Actionable Steps to Support Epistemic Diversity
Building on our findings and prior scholarship on inequities in academic publishing, we provide the following recommendations to support editorial teams interested in advancing a more pluralistic production of knowledge. Naturally, the feasibility of these recommendations varies across academic publishing contexts. Noncommercial journals, in particular, often operate with limited resources and may lack access to advanced submission systems or dedicated editorial support. In addition, some forms of data collection and monitoring depend on publisher-level infrastructures beyond the control of individual editors. For this reason, these recommendations should not be understood as universal requirements, but as guiding principles that can be adapted to different editorial realities. Nevertheless, even their partial adoption can contribute to a more equitable evaluation of scholarship produced in the Global South.
While many structural inequalities in knowledge production exceed the capacity of individual journals to resolve, editors remain key actors in reshaping disciplinary norms, redistributing epistemic authority, and transforming journals into sites of knowledge pluralization.
Conclusions
As Roth (2006) reminds us, editorial work involves educative and ethical responsibilities; sustaining the vitality of the field requires not only symbolic inclusion but also substantive policies that promote scholarly diversity. Nevertheless, many disparities in academic knowledge production extend beyond the power of journal editors. Elements of intellectual culture, for instance, are difficult to overcome. Editors and reviewers typically work voluntarily, and when reviewers exhibit epistemological bias, more active oversight by editors or associate editors may be needed—an expectation that is increasingly challenging with their growing workloads. Additional constraints arise from research funding structures, ranking systems, and national science policies. These issues, in short, cannot be resolved by editors alone. They “require holistic approaches that go beyond the good intentions and well-meaning attempts of individual editors” (Richards & Wasserman, 2013, p. 835).
Our study is not without limitations. Although it offers insight into an elite group of scholarly gatekeepers, the findings rely on editors’ self-reported data. Respondents may have misrepresented their journals’ practices, either to portray themselves more favorably or due to limited self-awareness. Future research would benefit from first examining publication data—and, where available, internal audit data—on geographic diversity in specific journals, followed by asking editors and associate editors to reflect on those patterns. Another limitation stems from the decision not to collect information about respondents’ journal affiliations. As a result, it is not possible to determine how many of the 112 journals are represented in the sample, whether some journals are represented by multiple editors while others are absent, or the extent to which responses may be concentrated within particular journals. Future studies could address this issue by incorporating journal-level identifiers while preserving respondent confidentiality. Additional investigations could also focus specifically on editors and associate editors of journals that have demonstrated success in diversifying their scholarship while retaining traditional markers of prestige. Another emerging and critical research strand concerns the potential role of AI and large language model tools in addressing inequities in knowledge production—namely, their potential to reduce certain language-related barriers.
Finally, there is a pressing need to transform the field’s operational culture, extending beyond the peer-review process to the teaching and legitimation of theoretical frameworks that have remained marginalized in Western Europe and the United States.
References
Albuquerque, A. (2021). The institutional basis of anglophone Western centrality. Media, Culture & Society, 43(1), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720957893
Albuquerque, A., Oliveira, T. M., Santos Junior, M. A., & Albuquerque, S. (2020). Structural limits to the de-Westernization of the communication field. Communication, Culture & Critique, 13(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcaa015
Atkinson, M. (1994). Regulation of science by peer-review. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(94)90025-6
Bhopal, R., Kohli, H., & Rankin, J. (1997). Editors’ practice and views on terminology in ethnicity and health research. Ethnicity & Health, 2(3), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.1997.9961830
Bosch, T. (2025). Decolonisation is not a vibe: On anti-capitalist praxis, citation politics and epistemic refusal. Media, Culture & Society, 47(8), 1714–1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437251360382
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus [The academic human]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chakravartty, P., Kuo, R., Grubbs, V., & McIlwain, C. (2018). #CommunicationSoWhite. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy003
Chan, M., Yi, J., Hu, P., & Kuznetsov, D. (2021). The politics of contextualization in communication research: Examining the discursive strategies of non-U.S. research in communication journals. International Journal of Communication, 15, 5272–5294.
Clarivate. (2024). Journal Citation Reports 2024. Clarivate. https://jcr.clarivate.com
Comel, N., Kohls, C., Orso, M., Otavio Prendin Costa, L., & Marques, F. P. J. (2024). Academic production and collaboration among BRICS-based researchers: How far can the “de-Westernization” of communication and media studies go? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231217466
Cummins, R. G., Gotlieb, M. R., & McLaughlin, B. (2023). 2021 Survey of journalism & mass communication enrollments. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958231152965
Demeter, M. (2018). The winner takes it all: International inequality in communication and media studies today. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018792270
Demeter, M. (2020). Academic knowledge production and the Global South. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52701-3
Dimitrova, D. (2023). Centennial editorial essay. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(4), 729–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231204743
Dimitrova, D., & Palmer, L. (2025). Socio-cultural borders in academic publishing. In A. Diener & J. Hagen (Eds.), Oxford intersections: Borders. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198945222.003.0154
Ekdale, B., Biddle, K., Tully, M., Asuman, M., & Rinaldi, A. (2022). Global disparities in knowledge production within journalism studies: Are special issues the answer? Journalism Studies, 23(15), 1942–1961. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2123846
Ewoldsen, D. R., Just, N., Lee, C. J., & Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K. (2023). Navigating the seas of inclusivity: A collaborative voyage at the helm of a communication flagship journal. Journal of Communication, 73(6), 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad038
Gondwe, G. (2025). Response to the 2025 ICA Presidential Address: Whose cosmopolitan imagination? Journal of Communication, 75(6), 421–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf051
Goyanes, M., & Demeter, M. (2020). How the geographic diversity of editorial boards affects what is published in JCR-ranked communication journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1123–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904169
Hanusch, F., & Vos, T. P. (2020). Charting the development of a field: A systematic review of comparative studies of journalism. International Communication Gazette, 82(4), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518822606
Hess, K., Tandoc, E., & Westlund, O. (2022). Editorial: Digital journalism studies, its core and periphery. Digital Journalism, 10(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2033630
Hirschauer, S. (2015). How editors decide. Oral communication in journal peer review. Human Studies, 38(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9329-x
Hogler, R., & Gross, M. A. (2009). Journal rankings and academic research. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335419
Kürzdörfer, N., & Narlikar, A. (2023, August 29). A rose by any other name? In defence of the “Global South.” Global Policy Journal. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/29/08/2023/rose-any-other-name-defence-global-south
Lipworth, W., & Kerridge, I. (2011). Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer review. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.534567
Livingstone, S. (2007). Internationalizing media and communication studies. Global Media and Communication, 3(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766507082570
Madden, C. S., Easley, R. W., & Dunn, M. G. (1995). How journal editors view replication research. Journal of Advertising, 24(4), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673490
Mainardes, E. W., Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2012). Journal editor perceptions of universities: Some empirical evidence. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.628686
Marques, F. P. J., Asuman, M., Sobel Cohen, M., Ekdale, B., & Ibrahim, A. (2026). Communication research inequalities and the prestige dilemma: Negotiating international recognition and local representation in Global South journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1–27. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990261439160
Marques, F. P. J., Kniess, A. B., Goyanes, M., & Oliveira, T. (2025). De-Westernizing communication studies through domesticating the Global South: A critical examination of the mechanisms shaping scholarly participation in the field. International Journal of Communication, 19, 3761–3787.
Matthes, J. (2024). Internationalizing communication theory: Finding ways forward. Communication Theory, 34(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae003
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Mohammed, W. F. (2022). Dismantling the Western canon in media studies. Communication Theory, 32(2), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac001
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). Exploring the black box of journal manuscript review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(3), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.759244
Neubert, D. (2022). Do Western sociological concepts apply globally? Towards a global sociology. Sociology, 56(5), 930–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385211063341
Nulty, D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
Randell-Moon, H., Anderson, N., Bretag, T., Burke, A., Grieshaber, S., Lambert, A., Saltmarsh, D., & Yelland, N. (2011). Journal editing and ethical research practice. Ethics and Education, 6(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2011.632717
Richards, I., & Wasserman, H. (2013). The heart of the matter: Journal editors and journals. Journalism, 14(6), 823–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913493062
Roth, W. M. (2006). Editorial: On editing and being an editor. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9024-y
Roy, S. (2023). Dissonant intimacies: Coloniality and the failures of South–South collaboration. The Sociological Review, 71(6), 1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231181775
Scherlen, A. (2020). Building bridges for social justice in global publishing: Seeking the Mexican perspective. The Serials Librarian, 78(1–4), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2020.1731858
Sobel Cohen, M. (2022). Africa rising? A meta-analysis of published communication scholarship. International Journal of Communication, 16, 3191–3214.
Waisbord, S. (2022). What is next for de-Westernizing communication studies? Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 17(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2022.2041645
Waisbord, S. (2025). The cosmopolitan imagination: A call for global communication studies. Journal of Communication, 75(6), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf043
Wellington, J., & Nixon, J. (2005). Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(5), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690500293835
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01553188
Copyright © 2026 (Francisco Paulo Jamil Marques, Sujatha Sosale, Brian Ekdale, and Bingbing Zhang). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at https://ijoc.org.
https://doi.org/10.65476/jvavaj13
[1] The authors would like to thank the journal editors who contributed to this study by participating in the survey, as well as the reviewers, whose thoughtful and constructive comments strengthened the manuscript. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
[2] https://osf.io/2fdw4/files/hqnbe?view_only=1593c487280b495a9685c47062ca0bc4.
[3] We excluded the journal Media and Communication, as it does not have an editor in chief, but only invited editors for thematic issues.
[4] https://osf.io/2fdw4/files/hqnbe?view_only=1593c487280b495a9685c47062ca0bc4.
[5] https://osf.io/2fdw4/files/hqnbe?view_only=1593c487280b495a9685c47062ca0bc4.
[6] https://osf.io/2fdw4/files/hqnbe?view_only=1593c487280b495a9685c47062ca0bc4.
[7] https://osf.io/2fdw4/files/hqnbe?view_only=1593c487280b495a9685c47062ca0bc4.