Part I. Bias in Academic Publishing: Are We Climbing the Academic Tower or Reinforcing the Pipeline of Privilege?

Introduction: The Pipeline of Privilege

As a social scientist who studies urban food systems, I've always had an uncomfortable foot in the policy and development sectors of government. To say I felt frustrated when new government programs went public that directly contradicted my published research is an understatement. To admit gratification when the programs failed would be self-serving. Instead, I leaned into a suspicion that I was falling under a shadow of bias in scientific publication. This is a topic I've been thinking about for a while.

Today the stakes are higher than ever. We're living in a moment of political upheaval and misinformation, and independent research matters more than ever. But "independent" doesn't automatically mean unbiased or equitable. We need diverse voices in science, not just diverse funding sources. The antidote to corporate-funded agendas isn't just more academic research—it's better, more inclusive academic research.

As scientists, we grapple with bias in our data, our methods, our interpretations—it's second nature to us. We design studies to control for confounding variables. But what about bias in who gets to do the research in the first place? We aren't immune to the same biases we study—gender, race, geography, institutional prestige all shape who gets published. Academic publishing isn't a level playing field. Bias compounds at every stage of the pipeline, and the result is that some scholarly voices are systematically privileged over others. Our citation choices can either reinforce or challenge these patterns.

Research confirms this trend. “Academic publishing is dominated by Western Europe and North America or the Global North, leading to a disparity in representation and access to research from other regions” (Bol et al. 2023). And it goes beyond geography. As Lundine et al. (2018) found, “[t]he gendered system of academic publishing is both a reflection and a cause” of biases in academia, making it clear that publishing both mirrors and perpetuates existing inequalities.

It's Not a Volume Problem

More papers are published every year than ever before—literally millions. It's overwhelming and beyond human capability to digest. More research does not mean better knowledge. Quantity does not automatically reduce bias. Because the current algorithms are simply amplifying the same voices louder and faster. Publishing more doesn't address the problem if we're still moderating who gets through the door.

My intention is not to create a false binary of corporate versus academic research. Yes, we need to push back against private companies dictating research agendas, but we also can't pretend academic publishing is a meritocracy just because it's not corporate-funded—because some of it is. The real questions I pose now are: who decides what counts as important research? Whose questions get asked? Whose findings get amplified? Independent research is only truly independent if diverse scholars have equal access to the publishing pipeline starting from graduate school opportunities with adequate funding and supportive mentors. Beyond that, here are six stages where bias can and does enter the publication pipeline:

Stage 1: Who Gets Hired?

Bias begins before anyone publishes a single paper. Hiring bias in academia happens due to gender, race, and institutional prestige. Access to tenure-track positions varies dramatically by demographics, and the ambiguous concept of "fit" often serves as coded language for homogeneity. International scholars face additional barriers including visa sponsorship requirements and credential recognition challenges. This stage determines who enters the pipeline at all. If you aren’t hired into a research position, it’s hard to get your voice on the scholarly record.

Stage 2: Who Gets Funded?

Grant funding disparities by gender and race are well documented. Bias creeps into review panels and reviewer selection processes. The topics deemed "worthy" of funding tend to reflect dominant perspectives and existing power structures. Early-career researchers from underrepresented groups face compounded disadvantages—they're fighting for funding without the track record that established scholars already have. Institutional resources like research support and startup packages vary dramatically depending on whether you're at an R1 university or a teaching-focused college. Funding determines research feasibility and scope. Without it, even potentially ground-breaking ideas remain unexamined. Research systems affected by “historical and systemic biases become institutionalised within research structures, organisations, and processes to limit career progression within academia” (Lundine et al. 2018). This isn't accidental. It's structural.

Stage 3: Who Has Time to Write?

Here's where things get particularly tricky. Invisible labor falls disproportionately on women and faculty of color—service work, mentoring, diversity committees. Teaching loads vary dramatically by institution type and status. Caregiving responsibilities and work-life balance demands aren't distributed equally. Access to research leave, course releases, and support staff? Also unequal. This creates a ‘productivity paradox’: those doing the most invisible work have the least time to publish. Time scarcity directly limits who can produce publications. You can't write what you don't have time to write. Period.

Stage 4: Who Gets Reviewed (and How)?

Even if you make it through the first three stages, peer review introduces another layer of bias. Gender, ethnicity, and institutional affiliation all influence how manuscripts are evaluated. The review process itself varies—double-blind versus single-blind versus open review—and each model has different implications for bias. Reviewer selection and representation on editorial boards matter enormously. Research shows that harsher standards are often applied to work from marginalized scholars. Non-native English speakers face additional scrutiny for language and writing style. This stage determines whose work moves forward through peer review and toward publication.

The evidence is clear. “[W]hen a journal transitions from single-blind review to double-blind review, female authorship increases,” providing empirical evidence that reviewer knowledge of author identity affects outcomes (Conklin & Singh 2022). And it's not just about gender. A recent study found “a statistically significant bias favoring manuscripts from prestigious institutions, evidenced by higher acceptance rates and faster review processes" (Kulal et al. 2025). The gatekeepers, whether consciously or not, favor certain voices over others.

Stage 5: Who Gets Published?

Journal prestige and gatekeeping shape what becomes part of the official scholarly record. Geographic and linguistic bias mean that Western, English-language journals dominate the landscape. Topics that align with dominant paradigms are more likely to be published, while work that challenges established frameworks faces higher barriers. Representation on editorial boards directly affects what gets published. And here's a financial barrier that often goes unmentioned: publication fees and open-access costs create significant obstacles, particularly for researchers without institutional support. Article processing charges can range from $1,500 to $11,000—prohibitive amounts for scholars in emerging economy regions* or at under-resourced institutions.

Consider this historical context: “Today's leading international journals such as the American Journal of Public Health, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal and The Lancet began as national journals. Their international reputation stems from cultural capital accrued over time” (Bol et al. 2023). What we now consider "international" was once decidedly local. Prestige is constructed, not inherent. Yet we continue to privilege these journals as if their authority is natural rather than historical. Moreover, bias operates alongside other factors, meaning institutional prestige influences outcomes even when research quality is considered (Kulal et al. 2025). It's not that prestigious institutions only produce better work. It's that we assume their work is better before we even read it.

There's another dimension to this stage that deserves attention: the label of "predatory" journals. While genuinely exploitative publishers exist, legitimate journals from underrepresented regions are sometimes unfairly dismissed with this label, further marginalizing voices from emerging economy regions*. The criteria for what counts as legitimate often reflect Western publishing norms, creating a circular logic where non-Western journals struggle to gain recognition.

Stage 6: Who Gets Cited?

Citation patterns reflect and reinforce existing hierarchies. The gender citation gap is real: women are under-cited relative to their publication rates. The racial citation gap is real: scholars of color are under-cited. Geographic bias is real: we over-cite Western scholarship while overlooking equally rigorous work from other regions. Self-citation and citation networks can reinforce privilege when established scholars primarily cite each other. Citations determine visibility, influence, and career advancement. They're the gold standard of academia, and that currency is not equitably distributed.

The data confirms that men still dominate the coveted first and last author positions, along with single authored papers, demonstrating that citation patterns reflect entrenched hierarchies (Lundine et al. 2018). First and last authorship signal leadership and seniority. When those positions consistently go to the same demographic groups, we're not just describing a pattern—we're reproducing it.

And here's the thing: citations drive h-index and impact factor, which directly affect hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. Citation bias isn't just about recognition—it's about material consequences for careers. When we fail to cite diverse scholars, we're not just overlooking their contributions. We're limiting their professional advancement.

The Compounding Effect: The Bias Spiral

Each stage of bias feeds into the next, creating what sociologists call the Matthew Effect: success breeds more success. Early-career disadvantages compound over time. A scholar who doesn't get hired into a tenure-track position can't compete for major grants. A scholar who doesn't get grants can't produce the research that leads to high-impact publications. A scholar who doesn't publish in prestigious journals doesn't get cited. A scholar who doesn't get cited doesn't get promoted. See how it works? Marginalized scholars must work harder at every stage to achieve the same outcomes that come more easily to those with institutional privilege. The cumulative result is a literature that does not represent the full diversity of knowledge and perspectives.

“Scholars from leading universities are more successful in publishing than scholars elsewhere. This might be because they are better scholars, but the preconception of their scholarship might figure in the evaluation process too” (Drieschová 2020). We can't know how much of the disparity is merit and how much is bias, but the fact that we can't disentangle them should give us pause.

And yet, Drieschová (2002) reminds us, persistence is part of the game, and we should talk more about our failures to make the process more transparent; publishing is tough. Transparency about rejection and revision is one small way to chip away at the mythology that successful scholars simply produce flawless work on the first try. We all navigate this system. Some of us just navigate it with more headwinds than others.

Let's also be honest about intersectionality. Women of color, international women scholars, and scholars with multiple marginalized identities face compounded disadvantages at each stage. The pipeline doesn't just filter by one characteristic—it filters by many simultaneously. A woman from a non-elite institution in an emerging economy region* who is a non-native English speaker faces barriers that multiply rather than simply add together.

There's also a psychological toll we don't talk about enough. Navigating bias is exhausting. The constant need to prove yourself, the imposter syndrome, the burnout—these disproportionately affect marginalized scholars. It's not just about structural barriers. It's about the emotional labor of persisting in a system that wasn't designed for you.

Finally, modern bias operates through mechanisms we're only beginning to understand. Search algorithms and digital platforms like Google Scholar prioritize certain journals, institutions, and highly-cited work. This makes it harder for new or marginalized voices to surface, even when they're producing excellent research. The algorithms amplify existing patterns rather than disrupting them.

To be continued…shifting from evidence to action

In this blog, I’ve traced bias through six stages of the academic publishing pipeline—from who gets hired to who gets cited—and examined how these biases compound over time. At each stage, structural inequities privilege certain voices while marginalizing others, creating a scholarly record that doesn't reflect the full diversity of knowledge and perspectives. The evidence is clear: early advantages multiply while early disadvantages become increasingly difficult to overcome. Women, scholars of color, researchers from emerging economy regions*, and those at non-elite institutions face challenges at every turn. Academic publishing not a meritocracy, but a system that reproduces existing hierarchies. But recognizing the problem is only the first step. In Part 2, I'll shift from evidence to action, suggesting strategies that researchers, reviewers, editors, funders, and institutions can use to reduce bias and create a more equitable publishing ecosystem. The system won't change on its own—but it can change if we act intentionally.

My call to action is especially urgent today with stakes higher than ever in this moment of political upheaval and misinformation. Our independent research matters more than ever…

Footnotes

Don’t forget to check out my new video this month on visualizing data in your journal paper.

You can find it in the Publish It! Library 

Or watch on the Publish It! YouTube channel. I upload new content monthly so subscribe if you are interested!

If you are ready to Draft It! check out The Essential 10-Week Workshop – a self-paced course with ttorials, community discussion board, and workbook designed to guide you in preparing your first draft in 10 weeks for submission to a peer reviewed journal!  

And while you are at it—join the Publish It! Community and share your experiences with other academic writers. It’s free!

Citations

Bol, Juliana A., et al. "How to address the geographical bias in academic publishing." BMJ Global Health 8.12 (2023).

Conklin, Michael, and Satvir Singh. "Triple-blind review as a solution to gender bias in academic publishing, a theoretical approach." Studies in Higher Education 47.12 (2022): 2487-2496.

Drieschová, Alena. "Failure, persistence, luck and bias in academic publishing." New Perspectives 28.2 (2020): 145-149.

Kulal, Abhinandan, et al. "Unmasking Favoritism and Bias in Academic Publishing: An Empirical Study on Editorial Practices." Public Integrity (2025): 1-22.

Lundine, Jamie, et al. "The gendered system of academic publishing." The Lancet 391.10132 (2018): 1754-1756.

*Note: I use the term ‘emerging economy regions’ as a neutral term in place of ‘Global South’