Abstract
Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation based on disciplinary and identity-based biases within systems of evaluation. In two studies, we draw upon the theory of epistemic exclusion to explore potential biases shaping journal review and publication processes in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP). In Study 1, we coded 1293 manuscripts submitted to ASAP between 2016 and 2021 to determine if there were disparities in the review and publication of manuscripts centered on race/racism, gender/sexism, intersectionality, or other marginalized social identities/systems of oppression (focal manuscripts) compared to manuscripts not focused on these topics (non-focal manuscripts). Results indicated both types of manuscripts were submitted to similar levels of scrutiny, and focal manuscripts were 1.85 times more likely to be published. In Study 2, we surveyed 106 authors who had submitted to ASAP to explore differences in experiences of epistemic exclusion across types of research and social identities (race and gender) and investigate whether epistemic exclusion was related to authors being published. Results indicated that researchers conducting marginalized research experienced less epistemic exclusion than their counterparts. Women experienced more epistemic exclusion than men, though Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, underrepresented minority, and White scholars experienced similar levels of exclusion. Experiences of epistemic exclusion were negatively associated with being published. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Public Significance Statement
Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation that is based in disciplinary biases about rigorous scholarship and identity-based biases about scholars from marginalized groups (e.g., women, people of color). This form of structural bias is embedded in research evaluation processes and may contribute to disparities in journal review and publication based on scholar identity and scholarly topic.