Revision Recommended: Reassessing Center–Periphery Dynamics and the Marginalization of Global South Scholars in International Peer-reviewed Publishing

<p xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" class="first" dir="auto" id="d752259e73">This work explores the structural challenges faced by scholars in the humanities and social sciences from the Global South, with a focus on the unequal power dynamics embedded in academic publishing. As international peer-reviewed journals have become central to academic career advancement—driven by the internationalization and standardization of higher education—publishing in such venues has become both a dominant practice and a major goal within the overall academic practices/presence. However, recent studies have shown that these journals, despite claiming to be open and international, often operate within Eurocentric frameworks that reproduce global hierarchies in knowledge production based on center-periphery dichotomy. Key issues include biased review processes that result in the "othering" of non-Western scholars, the marginalization of locally relevant research, homogenization of research practices and neocolonization due to the relegation of Global South scholars to the role of data providers for theories developed in the Global North. Other problems include the burden of high publication fees linked to the commercialization of academia, the unequal institutional support, the gap between the economic and social capitals possessed by the western and non-western academics. Moreover, disparities in research traditions, academic language, and writing styles contribute to further alienation. These notions indicate that these challenges are not isolated or individual but structural and multilayered. Therefore, it is important to identify and raise awareness of the hegemonic practices within publication processes and to examine them through the lens of epistemic injustice, with the aim of fostering more equitable academic ecosystems. This presentation draws on a narrative synthesis of existing literature to highlight these issues and advocates for a more just and inclusive scholarly publishing culture. Ultimately, it calls for alternative approaches that support the development of egalitarian platforms and practices in publishing.