We dove into the literature about global scholarly communication and found many scholars have examined discrepancies in research outputs for decades. However, we began to see this as an epistemic or social justice issue, as those who are published are viewed as having a voice and perspective that is valued and credible and those who do not publish or feel forced to publish in lesser-known journals, often feel silenced and not valued. We also examined the metrics being used to show country-level publication numbers. Our findings show that scholars from low- and middle-income countries are not producing scholarly outputs at equal rates or numbers to their counterparts in high-income countries. However, after diving even deeper, it became less clear whether the numbers we were looking at accurately displayed the complete picture of research outputs or just those indexed and picked up by well-known search engine algorithms. What is being stated as a lack of research outputs might not be entirely accurate when many peer-reviewed publications exist that are not included in these metrics. We then began to search for the best lens to examine the phenomenon through the individual effects on scholars and the impact on scientific advancements. When we turned our focus on identifying the best lens to examine the phenomenon, we found several that helped, however, none that fit the plethora of areas we planned to explore.

The evidence is clear, scholars who find themselves in core countries have a higher chance of engagement in journals and academic conference venues that contribute to increasing metric measures demonstrating their scholarly value than do scholars who find themselves in locations outside of the core countries. Evidence also shows that this does not automatically indicate a lack of engagement by the scholars outside of the core, as many of them participate in regional conferences and publications. Unfortunately, on a global scale, their research efforts do not appear to be as valued as their counterparts and their research is often siloed, or silenced, by the work that is promoted through the core country means. Many factors lead to the unequal engagement globally; however, much is still unknown that would enable further empirical research on the situation and allow effective plans for alleviation.

Why a new critical lens?

Our research has brought us to the conclusion that a new critical lens would be helpful to explore and discuss this phenomenon. To understand the injustices occurring, there is a need for a close examination of the experiences of scholars across varied circumstances. To make sense of these experiences, both the factors leading to the phenomenon experienced by scholars and the factors these injustices cause, we need new language and possibly new heuristics that would develop through the establishment and use of a new critical lens. The ability to see how factors, within this phenomenon relate, will allow for future work to study and possibly alleviate the negative effects on individuals and science. A lens that allows affected scholars to be centered will permit more detailed and accurate empirical research than can be produced from the current level of understanding. A new lens that provides us with the language and heuristics to study this phenomenon will also aid in fostering a healthier information ecosystem in global scholarly communication at large.