Peer review and exclusionary practices: a critique from the Global South

Purpose While publishing in Western, English-language academic journals, non-native English-speaking (NNES) researchers from the Global South experience significant challenges. They face systemic disadvantages in the publishing industry. Critical assessments provided by reviewers of manuscripts submitted to international journals by NNES authors pose a significant obstacle to publication. This underscores the necessity for research focused on their publishing experiences. Understanding the discursive tools reviewers use to assess the research of NNES authors unconstructively is crucial. Design/methodology/approach Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), I examined 65 peer reviews from 44 academic journals on manuscripts submitted during the publication of nine articles. The analysis aimed to uncover underlying discursive patterns within the reviews. It involved an assessment of the reviewers' comments that reinforced dominant structures of power and inequality through language. Findings The study revealed that reviewers employed several discursive tools: epistemic delegitimisation, foreclosure, superiority, moralisation, and gatekeeping. These categories reflect exclusionary practices in academic publishing. Research limitations/implications Reviewers need to be mindful of how their assessments may affect emerging NNES authors who often face additional structural challenges in the publication process. It is anticipated that the insights presented in this article will help foster the adoption of more constructive peer review practices within the publishing industry. Originality/value Scholars have examined various dimensions of research and knowledge production. However, the publication stage warrants more focus. There is a pressing need for beginning researchers from the Global South to articulate their experiences and contribute their perspectives within academic discourse.