Valuing diversity, from afar – A scientometric analysis of the Global North countries overrepresentation in top communication journals

1 Introduction

“We believe that diversity is a strength. Bringing together a diverse range of people, communities, and opinions is beneficial to the customers and communities we serve to our colleagues – and ultimately to humankind. We also believe it’s the right thing to do” – reads the statement of the commitment to diversity by one of the “Big 5” publishing houses, the ones who are the most profitable actors and the most prominent disseminators of the “best” journals in scholarly knowledge production (Butler et al. 2023). Diversity, in fact, is a key question in Academia, which encompasses a great number of issues from the underrepresentation of minority groups (Syed et al. 2011) to systemic challenges and barriers of women working in higher education to “step up the academic ladder” (Aiston and Jung 2015) despite the claimed objective and subject-neutral nature of the academic environment (Kaatz et al. 2014). Diversity is also viewed as a positive factor in scholarship. Booksh and Madsen (2018) claims that diverse organizations, including academic institutions, hold a competitive edge over less diverse counterparts, resulting in enhanced creativity, problem-solving, decision-making, and overall outcomes. Al Shebli et al. (2018) also demonstrated a strong connection between ethnic diversity and scientific impact, with ethnic diversity showing the highest correlation to research influence and success.

As Kaldewey et al. (2024) noted diversity can rightfully be connected to internalization as they are “two sides of the same coin”. Internationalization, usually described as a process or a set of efforts via policies and practices to make an institution or academic journal more inclusive and adaptable to a global environment (Altbach and Knight 2007), is a fundamental, and in a way, inarguable and uncontestable value in Academia. Travaille and Hendriks (2009) claim that internationalization is a crucial process in knowledge generation within academic institutions and it plays a vital role in the success of research efforts. Internationalization has also shown to be beneficial for creating cross-border research relations, building prestige in professorship (Stromquist 2006), the establishment of mutually positive collaborative institutional partnerships (Sutton and Brandenburg 2023) and the development of more inclusive curricula for students in higher education institutions (Mangione and Rao 2015). To achieve these results academic actors often employ integrated policies or take internationalized initiatives to make their respective structural system more global (Dewey and Duff 2009). Nonetheless, internationalization, though commendable in theory, often faces complex difficulties. Heuser et al. (2016), for instance, make a case that the growth of internationalization amplifies the risk of academic fraud and corruption, particularly in systems without strong regulatory frameworks and in this regard variations in social and academic norms add further challenges to upholding academic integrity. Research also highlights that internationalization may also result in intercultural conflicts or misunderstanding adding an even more sensitive layer to the existing administrative, structural, and policy-related issues (Fischer and Green 2018; Leask 2009).

From a knowledge dissemination perspective, the issues surrounding internationalization are even more contentious. Scholars have highlighted that internationalization outside the Global North often results in “westernization” (Demeter 2018, 2023]), challenging the very foundation of internationalization. Internationalization is essentially a process of globalization, not a means of becoming “like” Western academic counterparts. Recent research by Wiedemann and Meyen (2016) connects internationalization to the “Americanization” of communication sciences, referring to the process through which U.S. research practices, norms, and educational systems become dominant in international academic fields. While certain regions, such as the Ibero-American communication movements (Demeter et al. 2022; Ganter and Ortega 2019) or the Asian and African theoretical movements (Ngomba 2012; Satoshi 2007), serve as progressive examples of the gradual yet essential process of dewesternization, structural challenges persist. These include the preeminence of U.S.-based institutions and journals, which continue to limit diversity in international media research (Wiedemann and Meyen 2016). Global rankings and citation systems also tend to prioritize Western scholarship, creating obstacles for non-Western contributions. Ekdale et al. (2022) notes that though more prevalent journals publish special issues that focus on the Global South which can, indeed, enhance geographic diversity in authorship, however, they are infrequent and tend to receive fewer citations, reflecting ongoing biases in academic publishing. Demeter (2018c) also underlined the economic factors in the underrepresentation of Global South authors as significant correlations were identified between a country’s nominal GDP, per capita publications, and per capita GDP with its publication performance scores resulting.

It is essential to outline two foundational premises for this research. The distinction between the Global North and Global South is used here as a heuristic to describe systemic socio-economic and geopolitical imbalances in academic publishing and knowledge production. Though there is a profound ambiguity in their uniform conceptualization (Neuwirth 2016), Global North generally refers to high-income, industrialized nations, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, much of Europe (particularly Western and Northern Europe), Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and territories like Taiwan and Hong Kong (Demeter 2020; Torres and Alburez-Gutierrez 2021). Conversely, the Global South is often used to denote regions such as Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia, which continue to face structural challenges and inequities in accessing resources, publishing opportunities, and global academic recognition (West-Pavlov 2018). While this categorization is widely used in scholarly discourse, it is not without critique, as it may oversimplify nuanced realities and perpetuate binary framings that obscure diversity within and across these regions (Neuwirth 2016). Moreover, as we consistently use the term “inclusiveness” it is essential to set forth its definition for this paper. Inclusiveness, as defined in this study, encompasses the fair representation and participation of scholars from diverse geographic, cultural, and economic backgrounds in academic publishing. It considers not only the presence of Global South scholars in publications and editorial boards but also the recognition and integration of diverse research paradigms, methodologies, and topics.

Though bibliometric analyses of publication pattern in communication sciences is not novel (cf. Borgman 1989; Demeter 2018b), little research have been produced on the distribution and representation of the Global South in top journals specifically. Here, it is imperative to outline a consideration about the definition of top journals. Firstly, by top journals, we understand scientific titles and sources that are highly and historically impactful in the field of communication, usually cited frequently, holds itself to a rigorous reviewing process and ethical standards, and aims to produce high quality outputs (Braun et al. 2006; Garfield 1972, 2006]; Hirsch 2005). Secondly, other than being exceedingly prestigious, these journals also serve as incentives and key achievements in building individual and academic reputation, securing tenure tracks and other competitive positions and growing the chance of academic advancements (Hitt 2020; McKercher 2015; Sasvári and Lendvai 2024; Yeon 2021). Research on top communication journals thus far has mostly focused on bibliometric patterns and quantitative analyses (Feely 2008; Feely and Moon 2010; Griffin et al. 2015), collaboration examinations (Demeter 2018) as well as the effects of certain events on academic knowledge production in the discipline such as the digitalization of journals (Foote and Foote 2011). In this context Tóth et al. (2023) confirmed the U.S. domination in citation-based impact and highlighted that although Eastern European and Spanish research receives comparable view counts, it garners fewer citations, emphasizing the need for de-Westernization in the field. Despite these important segments of literature, the scholarship on representation of the idea of diversity and internalization is relatively scarce in scholarly literature. To fill this research gap, the present study aims to answer two research questions and two hypotheses:

1. RQ1: How inclusive are top journals in communication in view of publishing research from scholars from the Global South?

   1. H1: Top journals are exceedingly exclusive and the representation of scholars from the Global South is low.

2. RQ2: How diverse are the editorial board of top journals in communication?

   1. H2: Editorial boards of top communication journals are dominated by Global North countries, especially the United States, and the representation of scholars from Global South countries is low.

In addressing these research questions, this study seeks to provide a critical examination of the current state of diversity and internationalization in top communication journals. In this regard two key points are to be made. Firstly, as detailed above, research evaluation of communication journals has a rich literature. Therefore, this study aims advance prior research on the overrepresentation of the Global North in communication journals by taking a multidimensional approach to analyzing geographic disparities in academic publishing. Previous studies have primarily focused on either authorship patterns (Demeter 2018; Ekdale et al. 2022; Lauf 2005) or editorial board compositions (Asuman et al. 2024; Goyanes 2019; Goyanes and Demeter 2020; Goyanes et al. 2022), highlighting the authority of U.S. and Western European scholars and institutions. Goyanes and Demeter (2020), for example, demonstrated how editorial board diversity directly influences the geographic origins of published research, while Asuman et al. (2024) explored the phenomenon of geographic tokenism, wherein isolated representation from underrepresented regions masks broader systemic inequities. This study builds upon – and extends – these foundational works by adopting a comprehensive scientometric approach that integrates editorial board composition, authorship trends, and collaboration networks in one study. This “integrated” analysis examines how editorial practices, institutional affiliations, and citation networks collectively influence the inclusion or exclusion of voices from underrepresented regions. In sum, this study seeks to provide novel insights into the barriers to equitable knowledge production and proposes potential pathways toward a more inclusive academic publishing environment.

Secondly, and in connection to the first point above, the challenges of promoting genuine inclusivity and diversity in academia, particularly in relation to Global South scholars, are both significant and systemic. While many institutions and publishing houses outwardly commit to diversity, the underlying structures, including the overrepresentation of Global North institutions in academic publishing, continue to pose barriers. We are hopeful that the findings from this study will help to identify the extent to which these issues persist and offer insights into possible strategies for creating a more equitable landscape in communication scholarship where systemic challenges are addressed to provide fair opportunities for scholars across all geographic regions. Lastly, the aim is not merely to critique but to contribute to the broader conversation about how we can foster a truly inclusive academic environment; one that not only celebrates diversity in theory but also in practice. By drawing attention to the underrepresentation of scholars from the Global South and analyzing the composition of editorial boards, this research underscores the urgent need for sustained efforts to decolonize and dewesternize academic publishing (Schöneberg and Narayanaswamy 2024). It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all voices, regardless of their geographic origin, have an equal opportunity to contribute to the field. Only through these ongoing efforts can we progress toward a more globally representative and impactful area of communication studies.

2 Corpus and methods

2.2 Specified data extraction concerning top journals in communication

To investigate top journals, we used the standard quartile-based categorization of Scopus. Quartiles divide the total sum of journals into four categories (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) where Q1 represents the top 25 % of journals making them the most prevalent source in the respective field. For the examined period a total of 159 journals have been identified to be at least featured in Scopus at least once (N_min. = 1) as a Q1 journal.

As seen in Figure 1 which presents the N of times a journal has been categorized in Q1 fluctuates greatly with most communication journals never entering the “top” quartile in Scopus. In this regard, we define “Top journals” as those journals that have consistently and incessantly been featured and categorized as a Q1 journals throughout the 10-year-period (N = 42). The narrowing down of Top journals to only those who have continuously been ranked as a Q1 journal between 2014 and 2023 stems from the fact that there are stark differences in Q1 journals. As Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero (2019) underlines the share of Q1 journals often fluctuate which may cause significant distortion in correctly identifying the very best journals in the given field of study. To provide a clearer and more comprehensive view on top journals, and exclusively focus on the “very best of the best”, we deemed this filtering necessary.

Figure 1:

Distribution of Q1 feature of journals between 2014 and 2023. Source: Own edit based on ScimagoJR and Scopus data.

Then, all publication data (exclusively articles) of the 42 Top journals were extracted (N = 23485) and analyzed. The analyses included bibliometric pattern analysis, co-authorship network analyses with VOSviewer (Donthu et al. 2021; Van Eck and Waltman 2009). Editorial boards were analyzed by scraping data concerning the 42 Top journals official website for information regarding editorial boards. Data was collected on 15 September 2024. All 42 journals had information available concerning their editorial board. Data collection was then repeated for verification on 28 September 2024. There were no changes identified. In few cases (N = 6), emeriti and former editors were also included in the list of editors. To provide a comprehensive view on the editorial boards of Top journals these categories were also included in the dataset. It is also important to underline that due to inconsistent editorial statuses no differences were made between editorial statuses. This means that every scholar who was featured among the list of editors were included.

Lastly, several statistical methods were rigorously employed to assess the overrepresentation of Global North scholars and the underrepresentation of Global South scholars in communication journals. The chi-square test was chosen because it evaluates whether the observed distribution of categorical variables, such as publication and editorial board representation, significantly deviates from expected frequencies. This test is a nonparametric statistical test, and its application makes it particularly effective in detecting disparities in geographic representation (McHugh 2013). We have also applied another nonparametric statistical test, namely, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test which was used to compare the distributions of editorial board memberships across groups, as it is designed to assess differences between cumulative distribution functions, or in brief terms, the goodness-of-fit. The sensitivity of the KS test to both location and shape differences makes it ideal for identifying subtle disparities in editorial composition (Massey 1951).

Data was visualized via Python’s matplotlib (Hunter 2007).

3 Results

As a premise of the more specified investigation a general bibliometric analysis was conducted. Data revealed that out of the 501 identified journals a significant number of journals (N = 232) were featured consistently across all 10 years between 2014 and 2023 in the Scopus database. A noticeable drop occurs for journals featured for fewer years, with only 26 journals appearing for just one year. The most common pattern outside of consistent representation is a 5-year presence, with 59 journals falling into this category. There are 52 journals that were featured for three years, indicating a certain degree of volatility or transition within the rankings. Another observation is that most journals were either highly consistent (10 years) or had intermittent representation, with very few journals appearing for more than five years but less than 10. The mean period of being included in Scopus between 2014 and 2023 was 7.04 (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Distribution of journals by years featured in Scopus (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on ScimagoJR and Scopus data.

The regional distribution analysis reveals a stark disparity in the representation of journals from different regions in the field of communication between 2014 and 2023. Western Europe dominates the dataset, with 306 journals, accounting for the largest share of publications. Northern America follows with 111 journals, indicating a significant but smaller presence compared to Western Europe. The Asiatic region and Latin America, with only 17 and 20 journals respectively, are underrepresented, further highlighting the Global North’s prevalence in communication scholarship.

In terms of the average number of years journals from each region were included in Scopus, Western Europe leads again, with its journals being featured for an average of 7.35 years. Northern American journals, while also highly represented, have a slightly lower average inclusion period of 7.05 years. Journals from Eastern Europe have a much lower average inclusion period of just 5.22 years, suggesting that they face greater challenges in maintaining consistent representation. Latin America, despite its small number of journals, has an average inclusion period of 6.65 years, indicating a relatively stable presence (Table 1).

The analysis of the country-based distribution of journals from 2014 to 2023 highlights the overwhelming dominance of Global North countries in communication scholarship. The United Kingdom stands out as the top contributor, with 306 journals, which accounts for over 60 % of the total entries. Following closely is the United States with 111 journals, further cementing the hegemony of Western institutions in communication research. Together, these two countries alone contribute to over 80 % of all journals in the top 10 list, making it clear that communication research is heavily concentrated in these regions.

The Netherlands, with 27 journals, also plays a significant role, even though its output is much smaller compared to the UK and US. Germany and Spain contribute 17 and 16 journals, respectively, adding to the strong representation of Western Europe. On the contrary, regions like the Asiatic region and Latin America have far fewer journals, marking the imbalance in representation. Latin America, for instance, is represented by just 3 journals, showing that the Global South’s contribution is minimal (Figure 3).

Figure 3:

Distribution of Scopus-indexed journals by region (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on ScimagoJR and Scopus data.

The data on Scopus-indexed journal publications from 2014 to 2023 shows a consistent increase, starting with 4163 publications in 2014 and growing to 8660 in 2023. This represents more than a doubling of academic output over the decade. The most significant growth occurred in the last three years, with a notable surge between 2022 and 2023. This trend highlights a steady rise in scholarly contributions over time which is supported by the fact that average yearly growth rate of publications is approximately 12 % (Figure 4).

Figure 4:

Number of articles published in Scopus-index Communication journals (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on Scopus data.

The analysis of the top 15 countries by the number of publications reveals a significant concentration of academic output in Global North countries. The United States leads by an overwhelming margin, contributing 42.7 % of the total publications, far surpassing the next closest country, the United Kingdom, which accounts for 10.21 %. Together, these two countries dominate more than half of the total scholarly output, underscoring the global influence of the Global North in academic publishing. Spain ranks third with 7.18 % of publications, followed by Australia at 5.92 % and Germany at 5.54 %, further solidifying the strong presence of Western nations in the academic landscape. China, the only Global South country in this list, ranks sixth with 5.29 %, which, while notable, remains far behind the top Global North countries. Other European countries such as the Netherlands (4.46 %), Sweden (2.29 %), and Belgium (2.06 %) round out the top 10, emphasizing the influence of Western Europe in global research (Table 2).

With regard to Q1 journals specifically, we examined the representation of regions and countries. The investigation reveals a stark dominance of the Global North in terms of academic representation. The United States stands out significantly, with 47 journals having been in Q1 at least once, and an impressive 15 journals that maintained their Q1 status for all 10 years. This highlights the entrenched position of U.S. journals in top-tier academic rankings. In contrast, regions like the Asiatic Region and Eastern Europe have much smaller contributions. China and the Czech Republic each have only 1 journal that has been in Q1, and neither has managed to maintain a Q1 ranking across all 10 years. This disparity emphasizes the limited representation of non-Global North countries in the highest ranks of academic publishing.

Similarly, Peru, solely representing Latin America, has only 1 journal in Q1, and it has not been consistently ranked in Q1 over the 10-year period. The data reflects the structural advantage that Global North countries, particularly the U.S., hold in maintaining academic prestige and visibility in top-tier journals. This overwhelming ascendancy of the Global North, especially in the U.S., highlights the challenges that Global South and Eastern European countries face in securing and maintaining recognition in Q1 journals (Table 3).

With particular attention to top journals. data reveals a stark concentration of academic publications within Global North countries, with the United States leading by a significant margin, contributing 11784 publications. Following the U.S., the United Kingdom has 2319 publications, while Germany and the Netherlands contribute 1318 and 1285 publications, respectively. This pattern continues with Australia, Spain, and China showing notable, yet considerably smaller, contributions. The Global South is noticeably underrepresented, with only a few countries such as China and South Korea appearing in the top 20.

A chi-square test was performed to evaluate H1 with particular attention to the relationship between the region of origin (Global North vs. Global South) and the number of publications in top communication journals. The results showed a chi-square statistic of 14.79 with a p-value of 0.00012, indicating a highly significant difference in the distribution of publications between the two regions. Specifically, Global North countries contributed approximately 90.57 % of the total publications, while Global South countries accounted for only 9.42 %. The p-value, being far below the common significance threshold of 0.05, strongly suggests that the observed disparity is not due to chance. This finding supports the hypothesis that top communication journals are overwhelmingly exclusive, with a significantly lower representation of scholars from the Global South (Figure 5).

Figure 5:

Distribution of documents in top communication journals by country (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on Scopus and ScimagoJR data.

This co-authorship network visualization of documents in Top journals highlights the structure of global research collaboration between countries. The United States remains the most central and interconnected nation, with numerous links to countries across all regions, indicating its pivotal role in international academic partnerships. The United Kingdom also occupies a prominent position, reflecting its strong collaborative ties with both the United States and many European countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Clusters emerge within Europe, with Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands forming a tightly connected group, showcasing robust intra-European collaboration. Similarly, the Nordic countries, including Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, are clustered together, further emphasizing the strong regional partnerships in Europe.

In Asia, China and South Korea form key nodes, connecting to other regional powers like Taiwan, Singapore, and Japan, but with fewer direct ties to the European clusters. Countries like Canada and Australia, although part of the broader global collaboration network, remain somewhat on the periphery compared to the highly central U.S. and U.K. clusters. Global South countries, including South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico, are positioned on the outer edges of the network, indicating lower integration into the global research ecosystem (Figure 6).

Figure 6:

Co-authorship network analysis by country of top communication journals (Documents with 25 or more authors excluded, min. N of doc./country = 5, meeting the threshold = 84). Source: Own edit with VOSviewer based on Scopus and ScimagoJR data.

Finally, the editorial board were analyzed of top journals. The analysis of the editorial board sizes across the 43 top communication journals reveals a diverging range in the number of members. The average board size is approximately 70 editors. The smallest board has 20 members, while the largest contains 147 members, highlighting significant variability. The standard deviation of about 30 suggests a moderate spread in board sizes across journals. The median board size is 64, meaning half of the journals have editorial boards smaller than this. The interquartile range (IQR) between 49 and 90 members shows that the central 50 % of the journals have boards within this range (Figure 7).

Figure 7:

Statistical analysis and distribution of editorial boards in top communication journals (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on editorial boards’ information.

The statistical analysis of the editorial board members shows a significant imbalance between Global North and Global South representation. The USA dominates with 1,722 members, accounting for 57.53 % of the total editorial board members. The UK follows with 215 members, or 7.18 %, while Sweden contributes 21 members, representing 0.70 % of the total. In contrast, Brazil, from the Global South, has only 12 members, making up 0.40 %, and Colombia contributes just 3 members, representing 0.10 %. Overall, Global North countries contribute the vast majority, accounting for 94.32 % of all editorial board members, while the Global South represents only 5.68 %. This striking imbalance underlines the underrepresentation of Global South countries in editorial board positions (Table 4).

The analysis of the Top 15 nationalities represented on the editorial boards of the Q1 communication journal reveals a notable overrepresentation of countries from the Global North. Global North editors account for 97.62 % of the total editorial board members, while Global South, represented only by China, makes up just 2.38 %. The average number of editors from Global North countries is 187.21, much higher than the Global South’s average of 64. This disparity indicates an overwhelming presence of Global North scholars in editorial roles. The standard deviation for Global North is higher, reflecting a broader range of editorial representation among these countries. By contrast, China’s singular representation means the Global South displays no variability (Figure 8).

Figure 8:

Top 15 nationalities editorial boards of top communication journals (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on editorial boards’ information.

To test the hypothesis (H2) that editorial boards are dominated by Global North countries, especially the United States, while representation from Global South countries is low, multiple statistical analyses were conducted. First, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) Test was performed, resulting in a KS statistic of 0.56 and a p-value of 2.48 × 10⁻³⁷. This extremely small p-value confirms a significant difference in the distribution of editorial board members between Global North and Global South countries, supporting the hypothesis of Global North dominance. The test indicates that editorial board members are not randomly distributed but systematically favor Global North countries.

Finally, the Lorenz curve was used to visually demonstrate the extent of this inequality. The curve deviates significantly from the line of perfect equality, indicating that a small number of countries, primarily from the Global North, control a disproportionate share of editorial positions. As shown, there is a severe underrepresentation of Global South countries and further supports the hypothesis that editorial boards are overwhelmingly dominated by Global North members (Figure 9).

Figure 9:

Lorenz curve of Global South/North disparities across the editorial boards of top communication journals (2014–2023). Source: Own edit based on editorial boards’ information.

The average editorial board for top communication journals, is composed of approximately 70 (69.6) editors of which approximately 44 members from the USA, representing about 63 % of the total board size. This overwhelming representation suggests that editorial influence is largely concentrated in the United States. The UK holds a distant second place with around 5 members, while Germany contributes roughly 3 members, or about 4.3 %. Smaller yet significant contributions come from the Netherlands and Australia, with around 2 members each, making up about 2.9 % per country.

“The figure speaks for itself” – five countries alone make up almost 99 % of the editorial board, illustrating a clear bias toward Global North representation. Notably absent are countries from the Global South, which do not appear in significant numbers on an “average” editorial board. This concentration of editorial power in Western nations may lead to the prioritization of research agendas and topics that align more closely with the interests and methodologies of these regions (cf. the findings in Goyanes and Demeter 2020). (Figure 10).

Figure 10:

The average editorial board of a top communication journal based on countries represented. Source: Own edit based on editorial boards’ information.

4 Discussion

The results of the present research are summed up as follows (Table 5).

5 Conclusions

“Diversity is our strength” – stands in the opening statement of this paper referencing a rather standard commitment statement in Academia, yet the findings of this study reveal a stark contrast between this ideal and the reality in top communication journals. Naturally, this statement would only stand if by diverse the respective publisher meant bringing together and presenting the work of scholars from different nations of the Global North. Despite outward commitments to diversity, our analysis has demonstrated significant underrepresentation of Global South scholars in both publication output and editorial board membership. This gap highlights the barriers faced by scholars from underrepresented regions, barriers that must be addressed if academia is to live up to its principles.

It is also critical to accentuate that if diversity entails – as it should per definitionem – the promotion of greater inclusivity, actionable steps are necessary beyond decolonization. These could include reforms to editorial policies and reviewing procedures that prioritize diverse geographic representation, and the creation of highly research-friendly funding structures with a particular targeting of Global South scholars. For this latter proposal, models demonstrated by the success of open-access movements in Latin America may be used for inspiration (Babini and Machin-Mastromatteo 2015). Though a bit more direct, programs pairing Global North editors with Global South scholars at an institutional or even individual level could help bridge existing accessibility-related divides and cultivate equitable collaboration. Nonetheless, these initiatives regarding the development of dialogue between the two academic hemispheres must be pursued without compromising the integrity of existing journal content, ensuring that all scholars have access to fair and transparent publication opportunities.

6 Limitations

This study has several limitations that need to be considered. First, the study relies heavily on Scopus and ScimagoJR as primary data sources, which are respected for their quality and reliability. However, this focus may inadvertently exclude important regional or niche journals, potentially overlooking diverse perspectives and contributions. Second, the study’s temporal scope (2014–2023) provides a valuable overview of recent trends but does not capture historical developments or emerging transformations in academic publishing. Third, the linguistic dominance of English as the primary language of academic publishing creates a significant barrier for non-native English-speaking scholars, particularly those from the Global South. Editorial boards often disregard this difficulty (Flowerdew 2001; Pérez-Llantada et al. 2010). This difficulty often leads to the need for additional resources, such as writing, proofreading, and publishing in English, which may not be accessible to all researchers. As a result, non-English scholarship is marginalized, perpetuating inequities in academic visibility and influence. Future research should focus on these issues to provide a more comprehensive picture of the problems discussed in this paper.