This paper critiques practices related to governance, ethics and intellectual boundary enforcement in critically oriented academic journals in the aftermath of mass resignations from the leading feminist journal, Gender, Work & Organization. In doing so, the paper highlights problematic issues that undermine inclusive academic publishing in regard to non-White, non-Western and/or early-career academics. It calls upon scholars to address the lack of inclusion and transparency in these journals and offers suggestions to be undertaken by all academic editors to remedy the situation.
Based on the author’s experiences as joint editor-in-chief at Gender, Work & Organization, the paper offers a viewpoint of exclusion issues and problematic behaviors within academic publishing through a first-hand perspective and critical analysis of practices.
Three issues are found to impact inclusion in academic publishing. First, there is a lack of transparency in how editorships and board seats are allocated in many critically oriented academic journals. Alongside these governance issues, potential conflicts of interest related to prolific “cartel” or networked publishing among scholars create ethical challenges. Finally, boundary enforcement of intellectual contributions results in narrowly defined academic communities that replicate racialized exclusionary practices.
This paper is a reflexive praxis that calls out the need for academics to engage in good governance practices in journal management and foster ethical approaches in the publishing process. It also calls upon scholars and editors to reflect upon their practices in enforcing intellectual boundaries for the purpose of keeping particular ideas and people out of networks and consequently, out of academic communities.
