Should be edited by a “native speaker”: Anglo-American hegemony and peer review processes

Purpose – In this conceptual paper, the authors explore the role of Anglo-American English hegemony in academic publishing. Design/methodology/approach – The current work leverages previous peer-review reports received by the authors, integrating their subjective experience with established theoretical frameworks and the current literature on the topic, to discuss the impact of linguistic hegemony and power dynamics within academic publishing. Findings – Linguistic hegemony may be described as a double-edged sword within peer-review and academic publishing. On one hand, the use of a dominant language facilitates accessibility and promotes a standardized framework, fostering international collaboration, scientific exchange and broader dissemination of knowledge. On the other, the same dominance can impose sociocultural norms that disadvantage non-native speakers from diverse cultural backgrounds. The current work highlights that power dynamics in peer review are subtle but pervasive, often shaping what is considered “high quality” or “scholarly” language. This can inadvertently result in biases where linguistic fluency is conflated with intellectual merit. Social implications – Linguistic hegemony may favor homogenization of knowledge, where only certain perspectives and methodologies gain prominence, potentially sidelining diverse and culturally rooted insights that could enrich academic discourse. On a global scale, efforts to democratize academic publishing could reinforce the scientific enterprise's commitment to inclusivity. Originality/value – This work contributes to the ongoing conversation on equity in academia by addressing the understudied dimension of linguistic hegemony and its implications within peer-review processes, advocating for the adoption of a more “global” form of English as the “lingua franca” of science.