Benefit Versus Risk Deliberations on Revisions, Corrections or Rejections of Manuscript Submissions: Reflections of an African Woman Scholar in Audiology

Abstract

ABSTRACT The academic landscape is fraught with challenges, particularly for scholars whose identities intersect with marginalised backgrounds. This reflective paper explores the nuanced implications of revisions, corrections or rejections (RCRs) on the academic journey of a Black isiZulu-speaking African woman scholar in Audiology from South Africa. It contends that the effects of RCRs extend beyond the confines of a single manuscript, impacting the scholar’s sense of self, existence within the academic realm, and the deliberate ‘cancelling’ of one’s knowledge. Focusing on the unique challenges faced by African scholars, particularly the perceived emphasis on publishing as a measure of belonging, the paper employs a benefit-risk evaluation lens. This approach delves into the complex interaction between personal and environmental factors, shedding light on the multifaceted considerations that African scholars grapple with to establish their presence within the academic sphere. The paper outlines the well-known ‘publish or perish’ phenomenon, emphasising the hypercompetitive nature of the academic and research environment. Peer review, considered a critical component in the publication process, is explored for its role in quality assurance. However, the paper contends that the peer review process can inadvertently perpetuate inequalities, especially for scholars from underrepresented backgrounds. Thematic analysis of reviewer reports from papers I recently submitted forms the core of the paper. Seven emergent themes, such as the influence of proximity to native English speakers and the dominance of Western narratives, illustrate the challenges I faced in both local and international journals. Notably, the paper provides direct quotes exemplifying each theme, offering a very personalised perspective on the adversities encountered during the publication journey. The paper situates the field of audiology within the broader context of institutional and systemic racism, highlighting the underrepresentation of certain racial groups within the profession. It argues that this underrepresentation extends to knowledge generation and publishing, perpetuating the normalisation of Euro-American-centric norms and the exoticisation of Afrocentric standards. The reflective paper concludes by asserting that epistemological racism, intertwined with individual and institutional racism, stifles my pursuit of decolonisation and Africanisation of speech-language and hearing knowledge and practice. It contends that the peer review process, often Euro-American-centric, contributes to the silencing and exclusion of diverse knowledges, hindering local knowledge development and intellectual practices. In navigating the academic minefield, the paper calls for a re-evaluation of existing norms and practices within the peer review process to create a more inclusive and equitable academic environment for scholars with diverse backgrounds.