The publishing landscape

To date, diversifying academic publishing has focused on increasing representation of researchers from the Global South in Global North journals after evidence showed that their editorial and peer review process often gatekeeps and disadvantages the Global South. Researchers from the Global North have greater representation in editorial boards,6 11 12 reflective of their cultural and social capital which Paasi (2005) noted, has created and strengthened ‘colonialism and imperialism in modern research communities.’ There has been little attention on where academic publishing is centred, and how this too reflects historical norms. We argue that this is by design, not default.

First, the geographical distribution of academic journals is dominated by WENA. Focusing only on public health journals indexed on SCImago Journal and Country Rank portal, of the 584 journals, 46% (n=268) and 28% (n=165) are from Western Europe and Northern America, respectively (table 1). Remaining regions (categorised as Africa, Asiatic, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East and the Pacific regions) have 151 journals and within-region disparities mean India (n=15), Iran (n=19), Brazil (n=13), and the Russian Federation (n=14) contribute 40%, and Africa 2% (n=9). These 584 journals do not reflect the entirety of public health research.

Major citation databases are in the Global North and indexing is based on established norms. For example, Web of Science editorial process and quality criteria include English language abstracts, determination of scholarly content and clarity of writing. Citations over a 2-year period then determine impact factor (IF) which is associated with journal quality and reputation. Journals from the Global South are less likely to be indexed, less likely to appear in search listings, have lower IF or none at all and are often perceived as lower quality.6 8 9 The preference even among Global South researchers to publish in Global North journals is thus unsurprising.7 12

The numerical advantage of Global North journals and the ranking process means they lead SCImago rankings. Of the top 200 journals; 60% and 32% were from Western Europe and Northern America, respectively; of the top 100, 58% and 40% are from Western Europe and Northern America with only 2 from China and South Korea. The top 50 journals are exclusively from WENA (table 2). This has led to what has been referred to as ‘the uneven geographies of international publishing spaces’11 and ‘the geographical bias in knowledge diffusion’,13 where Global North journals occupy the centre of academic publishing whereas Global South journals remain in the periphery. We thus concur that ‘the periphery must claim centrality by itself’.10

Second, some argue that research conducted in the Global South is primarily intended for a local audience and should preferably be published in local spaces.14 However, we wager that what is considered ‘international’ today, was once local. Today’s leading international journals such as the American Journal of Public Health, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), British Medical Journal (BMJ) and The Lancet began as national journals. Their ‘international’ reputation stems from cultural capital accrued over time.13 Journal longevity thus implies ‘authenticity’ relative to ‘journals-without-histories’.15

Third, publishing is increasingly monopolised. In SCImago, 11 publishers embody 45% of journals, and all except Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications are in WENA (table 3). This is unsurprising given academic publishing is highly lucrative with 20%–40% margins,16 and publishers have a stake in citation databases which earn them subscription fees. Publishing companies are, therefore, commercially motivated to promote the journals included in their index as ‘non-predatory’, furthering the notion that Global South journals not considered for their index are of poor quality.15 Given that intellectual copyright accrues to publishers, regions where research is produced do not benefit from its dissemination.7

Taken together, Global South journals can neither compete on prestige nor finances. However, they play an important role in dissemination not only of context-specific research,11 14 but are also often the only space to showcase Global South researchers and collaborators.6 10 We argue that to diversify academic publishing, we must be intentional about bringing ‘peripheral’ Global South journals to the ‘centre’.

Diversifying the academic publishing space

Abimbola’s important article on the foreign gaze posits that editors require that authors justify their choice to publish in journals external to the region their research is conducted,14 to ensure research is disseminated locally and improve the visibility of Global South journals. However, given the aforementioned ‘geographical bias in knowledge diffusion’, this risks diminishing the reach of Global South research and maintains the problematic connotation of ‘international’ being the Global North.7

Instead, we extend this by recommending that editors require research articles from a specific region cite relevant articles from journals within that region and on submission, provide justification where this is not feasible. Given the importance of IF, this would gradually improve citation metrics of Global South journals by encouraging authors to publish in Global South journals, even if primarily for the purpose of self-citation. Though this might seem like circular reasoning, increasing citations could help redress the exclusion of Global South journals from Journal Citation Reports17 which results in their not being indexed and reduced visibility in search results. International journals should also highlight Global South researchers by intentionally soliciting articles from them, and publishing special issues that disseminate their research.12 As this does not improve the IF of Global South journals, we suggest in addition, copublishing with Global South journals and showcasing these articles within Global North publishing spaces, given their larger reach.

Salager-Meyer offered as a longer-term solution the formation of private editorial boards based in the Global South.12 Given the high number of regional journals already in circulation today, decentralising editorial boards remains worthy of consideration. The dominance of English as the language of science and the limitations this places on non-English-speaking researchers has been noted, with numerous suggestions provided to reduce this bias.7 11 12 18 Decentralised boards could facilitate the publication of high-quality research in regional languages. The requirement of English language titles and abstracts by citation databases should also be redressed. van Weijenr19 documents an increase in Brazilian journals in Scopus (Elsevier’s abstract and citation database) due to inclusion of journals published in Portuguese. A similar initiative should be considered for major non-English journals.

It is also critical to decentralise journal indexing by establishing independent regional-level citation databases, for example, an African Citation Index.15 This would reduce western bias in gauging the quality of journals and be a source of revenue for Global South journals, by establishing equitable subscription fees models.