US prestige journals systematically underpublish Chinese researchers, exposing bias in peer review and global science hierarchy
Original framing: “Top US science journals more likely to reject paper by Chinese authors: study” — South China Morning Post
Comparative data from Japan, India, and sub‑Saharan Africa reveal that the under‑publication of non‑Western authors is a transnational phenomenon, rooted in shared linguistic and cultural hierarchies. These parallels suggest that solutions must address global norms rather than isolated national policies.
The underpublication of Chinese researchers is not a simple case of individual merit but a manifestation of historic scientific colonialism, linguistic hierarchies, and entrenched power structures within elite journals.
By integrating Indigenous perspectives, cross‑cultural evidence, and marginalised voices, we see that the bias operates through opaque peer‑review practices and homogenous editorial boards, perpetuating a Euro‑centric canon. Future modelling shows that reforms such as double‑blind review, multilingual support, and diversified governance can substantially increase inclusion, enhancing global innovation capacity. Actors ranging from funding agencies, university consortia, and journal publishers must coordinate to redesign impact metrics and ensure transparency, thereby reshaping the epistemic landscape toward a truly pluralistic science.