Band 4, Heft 1 - Special Issue: Academic Publishing in Media and Communication Studies in the Digital Age: Overcoming Structural Barriers to Integrate Global South Scholarship

Purpose This article examines intellectual and media imperialism as complementary dimensions of cultural imperialism. While previous studies have addressed these concepts separately, this study argues that the United States’ dominant role in the international academic sphere allows it to influence media professionals in other countries, reinforcing media imperialism through a local workforce. Approach This article employs a historical-interpretative approach for describing how intellectual imperialism and media imperialism work together. It also incorporates a quantitative analysis of the rise of the disinformation-fighting agenda. Findings This study highlights the intricate relationship between external intellectual influence and local media narratives. Based on concrete examples, it shows how the Knight Center influences Brazilian journalists through intellectual training and practical initiatives organized via Abraji. Practical and social implications This paper contributes to the broader discourse on cultural dominance and media influence. It emphasizes the need for critical reflection on the role of external forces in national media ecosystems. Originality/value The originality of this article lies in its exploration of the intersection between intellectual and media imperialism. It illustrates how external influences, such as the Knight Center, bypass local academic structures and align with US political interests, ultimately affecting national sovereignty and shaping media narratives.

Purpose Research posits that the overrepresentation of certain countries from the Global North contributes to the geographical disparity in knowledge production within communication, media and journalism. Our study sets out to understand geographic tokenism in academia by analyzing the editorial boards of 30 highly ranked journals in communication, media, and journalism studies. We sought to explore if certain institutions and academics from underrepresented regions were overrepresented on journal editorial boards. Methodology We content analyzed the members of the editorial boards of 30 highly ranked communication, media and journalism studies journals. From our coded data we were able to identify the individual’s name, role on the editorial board, institutional affiliation, and country of institutional affiliation. Chi square, Pearson’s correlation, and Hierarchical linear modeling were used in analyzing our data. Findings Our study found that institutions and academics affiliated to institutions in the Global South are woefully underrepresented on journal editorial boards. On the other hand, we report an overrepresentation of a small number of institutions and scholars from the Global South across the sampled journals in instances where there is representation from the underrepresented regions on journal editorial boards. Practical implications Our results show that a journal with more diversity on editorial boards and editorial roles is associated with higher journal ranking. Social implications The social implications of our findings rests in the fact that tokenism can impede the diversity of thought that is necessary to move beyond the thorny idea of Western-centered scholarship being considered normative. Originality Whereas previous studies have analyzed editorial boards, our study is unique because it includes institutional and individual level analyses of journal editorial board members in our analysis of geographical disparities in knowledge production.

Purpose The paper investigates the relationship between research funding and its impact on co-authorship and journal selection in the social sciences, specifically in communication, political science, and sociology. It examines whether funded research projects are associated with more co-authors and higher journal prestige, revealing that funded papers generally involve larger teams, and are published in more prestigious journals, with some exceptions in sociology. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative content analysis research design, examining 1,091 articles across the fields of communication, political science, and sociology. It employs statistical techniques, including a Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square goodness-of-fit test, and chi-square test of independence, to assess the relationship between research funding, the number of co-authors, and journal quartile rankings. Findings The main findings reveal that funded papers typically have more co-authors and are more likely to be published in prestigious journals, especially in communication and political science. However, sociology shows no significant link between funding and journal prestige. Across all disciplines, non-funded papers are more common, reflecting the general underfunding of social sciences. Practical implications The results suggest that research funding can significantly enhance collaboration and increase the likelihood of publication in prestigious journals, emphasizing the need for more targeted funding in social sciences to boost research quality and visibility. Policymakers and funding agencies should consider these dynamics when allocating resources to ensure that underfunded disciplines, like sociology, receive adequate support to enhance their academic and societal impact. Additionally, researchers may benefit from seeking funding opportunities that facilitate larger, more diverse collaborations. Social implications The study’s findings highlight the broader social implications of unequal research funding, which can exacerbate disparities in knowledge production and dissemination. The overrepresentation of funded research in prestigious journals may reinforce existing power structures, limiting the visibility of non-funded but potentially impactful research. Addressing these imbalances could lead to a more diverse and equitable academic landscape, fostering innovation and inclusive knowledge that better reflects a wider range of societal needs and perspectives. Originality/value The primary value of this study lies in its empirical evidence, which has the potential to enhance future social science research practices. Additionally, it highlights how targeted financial support can promote more diverse, impactful, and socially responsible research.

Purpose This paper investigates the geographic disparities in academic publishing within top communication journals, focusing on the overrepresentation of Global North researchers and the underrepresentation of Global South scholars. The goal is to evaluate the inclusivity of these journals and assess the diversity of their editorial boards. Design/methodology/approach Using a mixed-methods scientometric approach, data were collected from Scopus-indexed communication journals between 2014 and 2023. Methods included bibliometric analysis, network analyses and advanced statistical approaches such as chi-square test and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Findings The analysis revealed significant disparities: over 90 % of publications in top communication journals were authored by Global North scholars, while less than 10 % were by Global South scholars. Similarly, editorial boards were dominated by Global North scholars, with the United States alone accounting for 63 % of board members. Practical implications These findings highlight the exclusion of Global South scholars from top-tier journals. The results call for more inclusive editorial practices and equitable publication opportunities for underrepresented regions. Social implications The study highlights the need to decolonize and dewesternize academic publishing by promoting greater diversity and inclusivity in scholarly communication, ensuring all geographic regions have a voice in the global academic dialogue. Originality/value This study advances previous work by integrating editorial board dynamics, authorship trends, and collaboration networks to provide a holistic perspective on geographic disparities in communication journals. It highlights the structural mechanisms that reinforce the overrepresentation of Global North scholarship and offers actionable recommendations for fostering greater inclusivity.

Purpose This study analyzes China’s strategic initiatives in metaverse and artificial intelligence (AI) development, examining their impact on academic research, industry innovation, and policy formulation. It aims to understand how government policies and investments have shaped research agendas and to identify challenges and opportunities in these fields. Design/methodology/approach The research employs a comprehensive analysis of government documents, funding schemes, and research output. It examines key policies, investment programs, and academic publications to track trends in metaverse and AI development in China. The study utilizes bibliometric analysis to assess publication trends, citation patterns, and international collaboration networks. Findings China’s proactive approach, characterized by strong government support and significant private sector investment, has led to a substantial increase in research output and quality in metaverse and AI fields. Chinese institutions have become major contributors to global publications, with growing citation rates and presence at international conferences. The research identifies emerging challenges in privacy, ethical AI development, and digital divide concerns. Practical implications The findings provide insights for policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders on the development trajectory of metaverse and AI technologies in China. They highlight the need for balanced approaches to innovation, regulation, and ethical considerations in these rapidly evolving fields. Social implications The study underscores the potential of metaverse and AI technologies to transform various sectors of society, from education and healthcare to entertainment and social interactions. It emphasizes the importance of addressing digital equity and ethical AI deployment to ensure broad societal benefits. Originality/value This research offers a comprehensive overview of China’s approach to metaverse and AI development, providing a unique perspective on the interplay between government initiatives, academic research, and industry innovation. It contributes to the broader discussion on the global development of these transformative technologies and their implications for future technological landscapes.

Purpose The pervasive inequalities in communication/media studies publishing include a significant underrepresentation of scholars in the Global South, as authors and as members of editorial boards in the field’s top-ranked journals. However, to date, there has been little published work on the implementation of strategies to address these disparities. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents discussion in this regard for the journal Communication, Culture & Critique ( CCC ), for which the authors served as editor-in-chief and associate editor. Findings During a four year (2021–2024) term, CCC undertook measures to diversify its board, and increased the proportion of Global South scholars, although Global North scholars remain a large majority. The journal also published several special issues focused on media/cultures of the Global South, which featured a larger proportion of authors with Global South citizenship and location than regular issue articles did; however, articles in Global South-themed issues may be garnering fewer citations than other articles in the journal. A pre-submission mentoring initiative launched in 2022 received almost all its submissions from scholars at Global North universities, and may reinforce Western academic norms. CCC ’s rejection data also shows the disproportionate disadvantage of Global South submitters, although CCC does compare favorably to other Oxford University Press social science journals in the diversity of authors’ reported gender, race, and ethnicity. Practical implications The broader structural character of the disparities we found should be addressed by journals, publishers, and professional associations. Social implications The mixed outcomes of CCC ’s efforts point to the persistence of structural challenges that require broader coordinated efforts to address more effectively. Originality/value This is the first study to provide a detailed account of how one journal sought to democratize its editorial board and increase the publication of Global South scholars.

Several recent studies collected evidence that demonstrates a linguistic disadvantage negatively affecting publication records of scholars using English as an additional language. This article frames these issues from three complementary perspectives, that are: a decolonial perspective, a perspective on disruptive capacity, and a participatory perspective. This systematization, based on literature review, allows to summarize a certain number of problems raised by previous studies and claims a shift from discrimination to domination debates. This posture still recognizes prejudices embedded in the publishing dynamics, but highlights that the latter can only exist in a system where science is perverted by commodified productive objectives. The present systematization also supports a solution that puts the multilingualism as a milestone sufficiently flexible to include different stages of progress in intercultural translation, while keeping high standards of academic production on the horizon. In a multilingual system, a collective mindset, intercultural translation, and a reviewed understanding of academic literacy recover the objectives of academic publishing as making science advance for the benefit of living conditions. This review sheds light on necessary changes that need to be implemented by funding agencies, publishing organizations, editors, peer-reviewers, authors and readers collectively. It demonstrates that making academic publication fairer to English as second language scholars will make it equally more meaningful for the whole society.