PurposeThe study aims to investigate the systemic barriers faced by LGBTQ+ scholars in Southeast Asia within the peer review process, focusing on the intersection of gender, sexual identity, regional and linguistic biases. It seeks to uncover how these scholars navigate challenges associated with heteronormative and Western-centric academic norms, particularly the “Reviewer 2” phenomenon. By examining lived experiences, the research highlights the impact of these biases on scholarly visibility and academic participation. Ultimately, the study advocates for structural reforms, including care-based peer review models, to create a more inclusive academic publishing environment that values diverse perspectives.Design/methodology/approachThis study employs a phenomenological research design to explore the peer review experiences of LGBTQ+ scholars in Southeast Asia. Using purposive sampling, 15 participants from various academic disciplines were interviewed, focusing on the challenges of navigating linguistic, regional and identity-based biases in academic publishing. Semi-structured interviews and reflective journals provided rich qualitative data, which were analyzed using thematic analysis. This approach allowed the identification of key themes, such as marginalization, linguistic hegemony and coping strategies, while ensuring rigor through reflexivity and participant verification of transcripts. Ethical guidelines, including informed consent and confidentiality, were rigorously adhered to throughout the research process.FindingsThe study reveals that LGBTQ+ scholars in Southeast Asia face marginalization in the peer review process due to heteronormative and Eurocentric biases. Key challenges include dismissive feedback labeling research as “too niche,” linguistic barriers prioritizing grammar over content, and the “Reviewer 2” phenomenon, which symbolizes systemic gatekeeping. Despite these challenges, participants demonstrate resilience by forming support networks, targeting inclusive journals and refining their responses to reviewers. These findings underscore the need for adopting care-based review models, increasing editorial diversity and decolonizing academic publishing to support marginalized voices and foster equitable participation in global knowledge production.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is limited to the experiences of 15 LGBTQ+ scholars in Southeast Asia, potentially excluding diverse perspectives from other regions or academic contexts. Additionally, reliance on qualitative methods may limit the generalizability of findings. However, the study provides critical insights into the intersectional challenges faced by marginalized scholars, offering a foundation for future research on decolonizing academic publishing. Researchers and institutions are encouraged to explore similar dynamics in other contexts and disciplines to build a broader understanding of systemic biases in peer review and develop inclusive, globally representative practices in academic publishing.Practical implicationsThis study proposes actionable steps to improve the peer review process, including implementing care-based models that emphasize empathy and constructive feedback. Journals should address linguistic barriers by offering language support and valuing regionally grounded research. Editorial boards must prioritize diversity by including scholars from underrepresented groups, particularly LGBTQ+ and non-Western academics. Open peer review systems can increase transparency and accountability, reducing biases. Universities and academic organizations should provide training for reviewers to recognize unconscious biases and create support networks for marginalized scholars, fostering an academic environment where diverse perspectives are valued and supported.Social implicationsThe research highlights the social inequities perpetuated by academic publishing, particularly the marginalization of LGBTQ+ voices from Southeast Asia. By advocating for reforms, the study aims to address these systemic barriers, contributing to a more equitable academic landscape. Embracing diversity in scholarly discourse not only enriches global knowledge but also empowers underrepresented groups to participate meaningfully in academic debates. The findings underscore the importance of fostering inclusivity within academic institutions, promoting social justice by ensuring that marginalized perspectives, particularly those challenging dominant norms, are recognized and valued in the global production of knowledge.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first to examine the peer review experiences of LGBTQ+ scholars in Southeast Asia, providing unique insights into the intersection of identity, regional and linguistic biases in academic publishing. By centering the voices of marginalized scholars, the research challenges entrenched heteronormative and Eurocentric norms while contributing to the growing discourse on decolonizing academic publishing. The proposed care-based peer review models and structural reforms offer innovative solutions to address systemic inequities, making the study a valuable resource for academics, journal editors and policymakers seeking to foster inclusivity and diversity in global academic systems.
Read full abstract
Apr 15, 2025
Zadok Maingi 
Just Published
Open Access