The phenomenon of Reviewer 2 as the archetype of the harsh and unconstructive reviewer obstructing scientific peer review has gripped global academia in recent times. However, if Reviewer 2 is the metaphorical storm, is there a calm before the storm during the desk editorial process or internal review, and is it free from biases towards Global South scholars? The purpose of this study is to document and interpret the various manifestations of editorial discrimination vis-à-vis scholars from the Global South.
This study uses a collaborative autoethnography of our lived experiences of submitting and reviewing research articles as an early-career and senior-career researcher to look into instances of editorial discrimination vis-à-vis Global South scholars.
We find that Global South scholars face several discriminatory challenges during the editorial screening. We document these challenges rooted in identity markers such as affiliation and designation as constitutive of a larger phenomenon of structural imbalances against South knowledge systems, which in turn is aggravated by the functioning of the editorial and publishing system with its delegation of editorial work to assistants, the rapid onset of open access publishing and the neoliberalization of higher education and academia in the Global South. To conclude, we provide certain coping mechanisms to offset such discriminatory editorial practices, drawing from our own experiences.
Being a collaborative autoethnography, this study provides deep personal and original insights that inform the socio-cultural phenomenon of editorial discrimination against Global South scholars. It is of value to fellow scholars from the Global South and will ignite further discussions through resonance and impact, such as transformation of their own publishing journeys with these insights that will in turn sublate the credibility of these findings.
