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

Taking Action to Reduce Bias in Academic Publishing

In Part 1, I examined how bias operates at every stage of the academic publishing pipeline. The evidence is clear: hiring practices, funding disparities, time constraints, peer review processes, editorial gatekeeping, and citation patterns systematically privilege certain voices while marginalizing others. I talked how these biases compound over time—where success breeds more success and early disadvantages become increasingly difficult to overcome. The result is a scholarly record that doesn't represent the full diversity of knowledge and perspectives, despite the fact that millions of papers are published each year.

Today the stakes are higher than ever. We're living in a moment of political upheaval and misinformation, and independent research matters. 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.

Understanding the problem is essential, but it's not enough. The question now is: what do we do about it? As someone who has expertise measuring social power and collective agency, I know that we all have more power to create change than we might think. Whether you're an early-career researcher conducting your first literature review, a seasoned scholar reviewing manuscripts for journals, an editor shaping what gets published, a funder deciding which research to support, or an administrator setting institutional policies—you have opportunities to challenge and even disrupt patterns of bias. Individual actions might seem small, but they accumulate. One thoughtful citation choice, one equitable review, one policy change can ripple outward. In this extended blog post, I’ll offer concrete recommendations for different actors in the publishing ecosystem, offer practical tools like citation audits, and discuss both individual and systemic solutions. We know bias is real, now let’s dismantle it.

Recommendations for Reducing Bias

So what do we do? Bias in academic publishing is systemic, but individual choices matter. Here are some suggestions on how different actors in the publishing ecosystem can contribute to change. 

As Researchers and Authors:

Conduct a citation audit of your own work. Look at your last three papers. What percentage of your citations are from women? From scholars of color? From researchers in regions with emerging economies*? From non-elite institutions? The numbers might surprise you. Actively seek out scholarship by underrepresented authors. Diversify your reference lists by gender, race, geography, and institution type. Cite foundational work from marginalized scholars, not just as add-ons to show you're aware of diversity, but as central to your argument. Challenge the assumption that prestigious journals always have the best research. Include non-English scholarship when appropriate, with translation if needed. Sometimes the most innovative work is happening in languages and venues we don't automatically seek out.

Lack of access to senior mentors, collaborators, and professional networks significantly affects who gets opportunities to publish, especially for early-career researchers from underrepresented groups. If you're in a position of privilege, use it to connect others. Mentor broadly. Collaborate generously. Be the open door.

As Peer Reviewers:

Practice self-awareness about your own biases. We all have them. Evaluate research on its merits, not on the author's institutional affiliation or whether you recognize their name. Be cautious about tone in your reviews. Are you being harsher than you would be with others? Would you use the same language if you knew the author personally? More than two-thirds of the papers that I agree to peer review are written by non-Native English language speakers. It takes me thoughtful effort to comment on the rigor of the research separately from the structure, organization, and syntax of the paper itself. Not all reviewers take the time to do this—I know because I see their comments.  

As a peer reviewer, you can also recommend diverse citations. When you suggest additional literature, make sure you're not just pointing authors to the status quo. Support double-blind or open review processes at the journals where you review. Research shows that triple-blind review processes can reduce the issue of female underrepresentation in publishing, though studies suggest it may not be significantly more effective than double-blind review (Conklin & Singh 2022). The point is that anonymizing author information reduces some forms of bias, even if it doesn't eliminate it.

As Journal Editors and Editorial Boards:

Diversify editorial boards by gender, race, geography, and discipline. Representation matters, and it shapes what gets published. Implement double-blind review to reduce bias where possible. Monitor acceptance and rejection rates by author demographics. If you're not tracking these metrics, you can't address disparities. Create mentorship programs for scholars from underrepresented groups. Address language bias by providing support for non-native English speakers—editing assistance, clearer guidelines, patience with stylistic differences that don't affect scientific quality.

One concrete recommendation comes from recent research: journals should require research articles from a specific region cite relevant articles from journals within that region, which would help improve visibility and citation metrics for underrepresented regions (Bol et al. 2023). This isn't about forcing citations. It's about ensuring that regional knowledge doesn't get overlooked in favor of only citing Western scholarship. Furthermore, it encourages a culture of support and validation.

As Grant Reviewers and Funders:

Examine review criteria for implicit bias. Are you privileging certain methodologies, topics, or institutional affiliations? Diversify review panels. Fund research on topics that have been historically marginalized. Provide funding specifically for early-career and underrepresented researchers. Support research at teaching-focused and under-resourced institutions, not just R1 universities.

As Academic Institutions:

Reduce service burdens on marginalized faculty who are asked to do disproportionate amounts of diversity and mentoring work. Provide equitable research support including course releases, funding, and staff support. Value diverse forms of scholarship in promotion and tenure decisions. Create transparent hiring and advancement processes. Address workplace climate issues that disproportionately affect marginalized faculty. While I would not consider myself a marginalized faculty, I did have the experience in my hired institution where I was a minority in gender and ethnicity. I found it incredibly challenging to find colleagues to collaborate with as well as senior faculty who would be willing to mentor me. The psychological toll was real. And a major reason I left academia and now feel called to be part of the change.

Systemic and Policy Changes:

Beyond individual action, we need structural reforms. Funding agencies should require diversity statements in grant applications that go beyond performative gestures to demonstrate concrete plans. Universities should value diverse publication venues in tenure review, not just impact factor. Professional associations should create equity standards for journals and hold publications accountable. Perhaps this category of change is asking too big of a reach, but agencies and institutions are comprised of people, and people activate change one decision at a time.

Taking Action: Examine Your Own Citation Practices

Let me get specific and ask you to reflect: Who are you citing? Who are you not citing? Look at your most recent paper. Break down your references by gender, race, geography, and institutional prestige. Ask yourself: Am I citing diverse perspectives, or am I defaulting to the same familiar names? I’m not pointing a finger—oftentimes we do what is easy and continue citing the same papers. I’ve done it; I do it. But let’s challenge ourselves to add one or more citations from underrepresented scholars in the next paper. Let’s seek out good research regardless of—or in addition to—the status quo. Remember that citations are the gold standard in academia. Let’s distribute this currency equitably.

Here's a concrete template: Pull up your last three papers. Count how many citations are from women versus men. How many are from scholars of color? How many are from regions with emerging economies? How many are from non-elite institutions? Don't judge yourself harshly for what you find—just notice. Then commit to reducing bias in your next paper.

Conclusion: Moving Toward a More Inclusive Scholarly Record

Bias in academic publishing is systemic, but individual choices matter. Every citation is a choice—and an opportunity. We all have the power to amplify marginalized voices. Creating a more inclusive literature requires intentionality at every stage. Starting with your next paper, whose voices will you elevate?

In times of political and social instability—happening across local to global scales at this moment—the research that gets published shapes policy, public opinion, and the future. If only certain voices are heard, we're making decisions with incomplete information. Our knowledge base loses its soundness. We need research from scholars across regions with emerging economies, from women, from people of diverse ethnic backgrounds, from under-resourced institutions. I'm not arguing for a diversity checkbox—I'm arguing for inclusion of diverse perspectives that uncover blind spots. Isn't research about testing the limits and asking: what did I miss?

The path forward isn't about publishing more—it's about publishing more inclusively. It's about being intentional with our citations, rigorous in our peer reviews, and equitable in our editorial decisions. We all have more power than we think to shift the system—one paper, one citation, one review at a time.

Call to Action

Here's what you can do right now. Conduct a citation audit of your recent publications. Commit to diversifying your reference lists going forward. Share this blog with colleagues and spark conversations about bias in your department, your field, your networks. Join or support initiatives working to reduce bias in academic publishing. And add this to your workflow: before you submit your next paper, pause and ask yourself if you've cited diverse voices. If the answer is no, go back and find them. They're out there. You just have to look.

Want to dive deeper into a conversation about your academic writing and publishing practices? Check out The Watering Hole--free virtual community discussion board.  It's a place to ask questions, give advice, and share the writing and publishing experience.

This isn't about perfection. It's about progress. It's about recognizing that the scholarly record we're building together should reflect the full breadth of human knowledge and experience. Let's build something better.

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).

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

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.

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’