Linguistic inequity in academia: evidence from publication patterns in philosophy, 1975–2021

Abstract Linguistic inequity affecting non-native English speakers is widely documented in academia. This inequity is especially visible in philosophy, where success depends unusually heavily on the quality and nuance of written expression. Yet existing studies rely on small samples from a handful of elite journals, limiting their generalizability. We address this gap with the most comprehensive empirical analysis to date, covering 103,595 articles published across 223 journals between 1975 and 2021. Using two automated classifiers based on institutional affiliation and PhD country (accuracy above 89%), we estimate authors’ linguistic backgrounds at scale. We find strong evidence of severe underrepresentation of non-native authors in top philosophy journals across all classifiers, while evidence for underrepresentation in non-top journals is mixed. Moreover, while representation has improved since 1975, progress has been slower in elite journals. We investigate three potential explanations for the gap between high-prestige and non-top journals: language quality, active discrimination, and differences in research interests. We find at best suggestive evidence for the language-quality hypothesis; evidence that the adoption of double-blind review is associated with improved non-native representation (a pattern consistent with active discrimination); and evidence that prestigious journals disproportionately publish in subfields where non-native English speakers are less represented. Taken together, these findings illustrate how linguistic background can shape access to publication opportunities in academia.