The study explores the lived experiences of Nigerian Library and Information Science (LIS) scholars who believe their manuscripts were rejected not due to lack of scholarly quality, but as a result of editorial bias within the global academic publishing system.
The study employed a qualitative phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of senior LIS scholars in Nigeria regarding perceived editorial bias in academic publishing. Data were collected through focused group discussions involving six purposively selected senior academics, each representing one of Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones. The discussions were guided by a semi-structured protocol that encouraged open sharing of personal experiences related to manuscript rejection. The qualitative data were analyzed thematically to identify patterns and meanings across participants’ narratives, capturing the depth and complexity of their perceptions and responses to systemic challenges in the global publishing landscape.
The analysis revealed key themes including geographic and institutional prejudice, epistemological exclusion, and language-related discrimination. Scholars reported that work affiliated with African institutions or framed within Afrocentric perspectives was often desk-rejected or reviewed dismissively, in contrast to similar submissions from Western institutions. These experiences led to emotional strain, lowered academic confidence, delayed career progression, and the adoption of Eurocentric research approaches to meet editorial expectations. Nonetheless, participants showed resilience through international collaborations, adaptive publishing strategies, and support for African-based journals.
The study offers original insight into systemic inequities in academic publishing from the perspective of underrepresented scholars. It contributes to the decolonization discourse by advocating for inclusive editorial practices, diversified editorial boards, and recognition of diverse epistemologies in global scholarship.
