Global North-South science inequalities due to language and funding barriers

Global North-South science inequalities due to language and funding barriers Rachel Turba1*, Eli S.J. Thoré2,3,4, Michael G. Bertram3,5,6, Hannia Bridg7, Saeed Shafiei Sabet8, Maribet Gamboa9,10, Juan Camilo Ríos-Orjuela11,12, Elina Takola13, Jose Capa Salinas14, Ana Clara Sampaio Franco15, César Marín16,17** 1Laboratory of Genomics and Molecular Biology Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul – PUCRS, Brazil. 2Laboratory of Adaptive Biodynamics, Research Unit in Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Life, Earth, and Environment, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, Namur 5000, Belgium. 3Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden. 4TRANSfarm - Science, Engineering, & Technology Group, KU Leuven, Lovenjoel, Belgium. 5Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 6School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 7Life Sciences & Bioeconomy Business Strategic Consultant, Bridg-Networking Consultancy, Berlin Brain City Ambassador, Berlin, Germany. 8Fisheries Department, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Sowmeh Sara, Iran. 9Department of Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, 409054 Concepción, Chile. 10Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Ambientes Sustentables (CIBAS), Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile. 11Laboratorio de Biología Evolutiva de Vertebrados, Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, 111711, Colombia. 12Grupo de Morfología y Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá, 7495, Colombia. 13Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrasse 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany. 14Department of Civil Engineering, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America. 15GRECO, Institute of Aquatic Ecology, University of Girona, Catalonia, Spain. 16Centro de Investigación e Innovación para el Cambio Climático (CiiCC), Universidad Santo Tomás, Av Ramón Picarte 1130, 5090000 Valdivia, Chile. 17Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment, Section Ecology & Evolution, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, Amsterdam 1081 HV, the Netherlands. *Corresponding author: [email protected] **Corresponding author: [email protected] ORCID: RT: 0000-0003-3388-4503, ESJT: 0000-0002-0029-8404, MGB: 0000-0001-5320-8444, HB: 0009-0009-8018-4041, SSS: 0000-0001-5919-2527, MG: 0000-0003-3744-1339, JCR: 0000-0001-69769131, ET: 0000-0003-1268-5513, JCS: 0000-0002-0929-7192, ACSF: 0000-0002-1572-3645, CM: 00000002-2529-8929. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Abstract Delving into the persistent impacts of colonialism within the sphere of modern science, we explore some of the deep-seated disparities between the Global North and South with regard to the scientific enterprise. Central to this inequality are the hurdles of language and financial support. As such, this work discusses the often-overlooked obstacles that Global South scientists face, including the additional efforts nonnative English speakers must invest in reading and publishing, their higher rejection rates, and the widespread neglect of publications in languages other than English. These challenges not only hinder the advancement of science but also deepen existing divides. Furthermore, we examine the double-edged sword of and the geopolitical limits of open science. While these policies democratize access to scientific knowledge, they can inadvertently exacerbate the North-South inequalities due to, for example, the prohibitive costs associated with open-access publishing—a financial burden that is often unmanageable for researchers with limited funding. This funding gap severely restricts the Global South’s scientific capabilities and impact, affecting everything from conducting comprehensive research to attending scientific meetings. The culmination of these disparities not only diminishes the impact of Global South researchers in their fields but also traps them in a cycle of reduced funding and limited global networking opportunities. In addressing these complex issues, the contributions in this work highlight some of the most common and pronounced issues related to scientific inequalities, as well as suggesting possible ways of bridging this gap in order to reach a more equitable distribution of resources and recognition in the global scientific community. Keywords: Open science; Global South science; Decolonization; Science funding; Second language. Multilingual translations of this Abstract are available at Page 26 in Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, German, and Persian. 2 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1. Context of the current work The terminology ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ has been increasingly used in academia and by scholars (Toshkov, 2018), although we want to acknowledge that it comes with its own limitations and pitfalls. The history of using this terminology goes back to the commission chaired by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who prepared a report (Brandt et al., 1980) presenting the concept of a baseline dividing the “developed” Global North and the “developing” Global South. This situation is the same with other terminologies coined in the past and still used today, such as “First-Third Worlds” and “Developed” and “Developing Countries”. While the current literature no longer uses the “Third World” term, the classification of countries within international organizations and statistical rankings remains highly stratified, despite substantial local variations (Lees, 2011). All of these terms tend to overly reduce and erase diverse experiences (Beattie, 2023), and the term “Global North-South” focuses on a geographical relation that does not directly translate culturally, historically, or economically (Toshkov, 2018). Further, Toshkov (2018) recommends not using this terminology and being more accurate when talking about specific countries (i.e., “less developed countries”). However, and precisely because of the popularity of the terminology (Toshkov, 2018), we prefer to use this familiar term and clarify its meaning here. Therefore, whenever we refer to the ‘Global South’ in this work, we are referring to low and middle-income, formerly and currently colonized countries. As this paper is written by many researchers from different regions of the world, we must acknowledge how our experiences have shaped this piece and have guided much of our discussions and views on this topic (see Table A1; Appendix). Our background and experiences relate to the challenges that we have faced when participating in science, influence our perspectives and views (hooks, 1994; Longino, 1995), and determine the focus and narrative of this manuscript. Therefore, we focus on two main barriers that are not only shared among us, but also envelop many other related issues regarding participation in modern science, namely the challenges of language and funding gaps. 2. Context of mainstream modern science 2.1. Perspective of the Eurocentric dominance in science The term “scientific revolution” has been characterized in at least three different ways since it was coined and popularized (Cunningham & Williams, 1993). First, in a philosophical sense, it is defined as a particular method of inquiry that produces knowledge in the form of causal, mathematical laws, or which can be reduced to such laws. Second, as a moral enterprise, to amplify freedom, rationality, truth, and as the motor of social progress. And third, as the embodiment of the innate, universally curious human nature. The history of science, as taught to most students, has long been understood in this way, despite drastic changes and contrasting views on this topic in the wider scientific community. The deductive, scientific method that most of us understand as the “scientific method” has long been questioned, with some philosophers of science like Okasha (2016) arguing that rather than one scientific method, there are several scientific methods specific for each scientific discipline (Marín, 2018). Hansson (2006) analyzed 70 highly-cited Nature articles and found that just two met Karl Popper's deductive, falsification criteria. Of course, Popper’s ideas come directly from a characterization of science based on the reduction of phenomena to universal laws only (Okasha, 2016). That is why Popper had issues with demarcating some 3 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 parts of the life sciences—like evolutionary biology—as science (Stamos, 1996). It would be very difficult to argue that whole disciplines like paleontology, mathematical modeling, naturalist exploration, and many others that do not directly test hypotheses in a deductive manner, do not constitute science. It should also be clear, at this point, that science can operate rather in an inductive manner, as argued by Okasha (2016), and also in an abductive manner, as argued by Charles Pierce (Santaella Braga, 2019). The first uses specific observations to make broader generalizations (i.e., the trisomy in the 21st chromosome of some patients was observed to conclude this is the cause of Down syndrome), while the second case is a form of logical inference of simplest explanation which also incorporates probability, uncertainty, and doubt (Fitzhugh, 2006). The moral characterization of the scientific revolution has also long been questioned (Merton, 1938). Such characterization assumes that science is free of any religious, social, economic, and political influence. In reality, however, the scientific revolutions were clearly affected by religious (e.g., Puritanism) and economic values (e.g., modern capitalism) (Cunningham & Williams, 1993). It is difficult not to connect the development of many scientific ideas and theories with the specific social contexts and political powers into which they were born. Moreover, the European countries that hosted these scientific revolutions since the 17th century were, mostly, also the countries benefiting from the first forms of global trade and capitalism, colonization, and slave trade. Scientists in the 17th century were directly and indirectly affected, influenced, and funded by such colonization ideas and practices. Although rationalization has been a valued trait in science since the time of Aristotle, research shows that factors like first impressions and negative experiences deeply affect reasoning, and scientists are not immune to this (Kuhn, 1962; Haidt, 2012; Kahan, 2012). Thus, scientists are equally and strongly influenced by emotions and intuitions (Haraway, 1988). Rather than abandoning reason and scientific inquiry in its entirety—as some academics have proposed (Sokal & Bricmont, 1999)—it is more beneficial to be conscious about the historical and psychological factors that affect the way that scientific revolutions started, and the way that individual scientists and the scientific community operate (Haraway, 1988; Haidt, 2012). Several criticisms have been issued on the “universality” of scientific inquiry over the last decades, coming from many academic areas and thought systems (Cunningham & Williams, 1993), including indigenous scholars (Hird et al., 2023). The mainstream understanding of science originates from primary assumptions about the characteristics of science itself, which are based on idealizations of the world and what the scientific activity is (Liboiron, 2021). This has led to long-held views about the scientific method itself, which are still applied at different levels of scientific evaluation, affecting what gets funding, what gets to be published and therefore, taught and passed on to future generations (Paasi, 2005; Salager-Meyer, 2008). This cultural background of the scientific enterprise highlights how the current system operates and how researchers are able (or not) to overcome barriers for participation in the global research environment. 2.2. The publishing landscape and the move towards Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) science For most of the history of the European scientific enterprise, scholarly communication was accomplished through non-commercial means, such as letters, monographs, pamphlets, and essays (Zuckerman & 4 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 Merton, 1971; Larivière et al., 2015). Publishing costs were mostly in the hands of individuals, or through the support of publishing organizations, such as university presses and donors. The scientific enterprise was concentrated in the hands of wealthy, white, independent, male scholars, and prestige was not yet tied to publication, but rather to social standing (Fyfe et al., 2017). With the creation of the first learned societies, the first scientific journals appeared, although still far from the structure we understand now, operating more like magazines, with no systematic “peer review”, and primarily fulfilling the vision of the editor (Fyfe et al., 2017). Publishing also became a way to secure intellectual property rights, which motivated researchers to move from a culture of secrecy to open communication (Zuckerman & Merton, 1971). This transformed the ethos of the European scientific community to one of free circulation and sharing of knowledge and ideas. Even though these first journals had the intention of generating revenue, they rarely did (Fyfe et al., 2015). However, things began to change in the 18th century with the print culture reducing the costs of publication and increasing accessibility to a wider readership. This, coupled with an increase of academic jobs and the professionalization of the academic community, meant that authorship became a tool for universities to evaluate their employees (Paasi, 2005). As universities increasingly became the hub of researchers, publications became a primary way to demonstrate the institution’s and one’s intellectual merits, slowly changing the culture of prestige (Zuckerman & Merton, 1971; Fyfe et al., 2017). Yet, “reputable” publications at that time still did not undergo full peer review as it exists today, and a rudimentary system of refereeing existed mainly in learned societies as a means to safeguard their reputation and representation (Zuckerman & Merton, 1971). After World War II, there was a major expansion of governmental funding for research, especially in the United States (Baldwin, 2020). This created fertile ground for a new for-profit system of publishing, for several reasons, as discussed in Fyfe et al. (2017). First, the volume of research outputs began to outpace the capacity of scientific journals to handle them. Suddenly, finding articles to publish and keeping the periodicity was not an issue, which necessitated efficient mechanisms for sharing this wealth of information. This expansion was also due to the emergence of new scientific disciplines and fields of study. The diversification of research areas created a demand for platforms to disseminate new knowledge and findings. The post-war period also saw an increase in the internationalization of research, with conferences, collaborations, and societies growing in scope and reach. Scientific communities and the readership grew substantially, and the new publishers had a much larger customer base to explore. As the US was the main driving force in research funding and output, English was increasingly used as the international language of science (lingua franca) and was, therefore, the language chosen by these new publishers. However, this growth in funding for research in the US also brought increased tension between accountability to the public and the government, and research autonomy, leading to a transformation of the refereeing system by the mid 1970s (Baldwin, 2020). This is when the term “peer review” started being used, with its definition implying that only a small group of people, the expert peers, should be responsible for evaluating an article or proposal’s worthiness. First employed mainly by US funding agencies, this process was later co-opted by publishers worldwide (Baldwin, 2020) since the judgment of peer reviewers was seen as a token of value and legitimization—one that is given for free and anonymously by a community that still serves the ethos of improving science and sharing knowledge. 5 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 While generous funding lasted, publishers focused on selling journal access to institutions, since they could charge more per subscription than to individuals. Due to its particular nature and through various strategies to reduce costs, publishing became a highly profitable business, one where neither the primary good nor its quality control is paid for (Larivière et al., 2015). By the 1980s, the stream of funding drastically decreased and universities and libraries struggled to keep up with the costs of acquiring titles (Fyfe et al., 2017). Unlike most commercial goods, there is no cheap alternative to scientific discoveries and ideas, and this limitation has exacerbated the inequality of access between institutions and academics, and their potential for innovation and participation in cutting-edge research. More recent advances in technology, such as digital media and the internet, have brought the promise to facilitate the publication and circulation of academic research, democratizing its access. However, these technological advances have also brought new commercial opportunities by reducing production costs, and with new digital rights practices, publishers have taken control of intellectual property and thus prevented its free dissemination (Larivière et al., 2015; Fyfe et al., 2017). The academic culture of prestige that emphasizes a particular form of refereeing and journals has stymied alternative, non-profit models of academic publishing that lie outside of traditional systems of reward and recognition (Fyfe et al., 2017), and instead, has fueled up the creation of a publisher monopoly (Nolde-Lopez et al., 2023, although see Kulczycki et al., 2025 for examples of where open diamond models play a major role). Over the past decade, the landscape of academic publishing has witnessed a transformative shift in the commitment to Open Science, particularly due to global-scale diplomatic commitments. For example, UNESCO has recommended the following Open Science principles on a voluntary basis: transparency, scrutiny, critique, and reproducibility; equality of opportunities; responsibility, respect, and accountability; collaboration, participation, and inclusion; flexibility; and sustainability (UNESCO, 2021). Moreover, current US-European policies and mandates increasingly require publicly funded research to be published in Open Access (OA) formats. While this shift promotes broader dissemination of knowledge, it has also led to a significant financial restructuring, especially for commercial publishers. The transition from institutions shouldering the costs to authors navigating the terrain through Article Processing Charges (APCs) has effectively transferred the financial burden onto research grants and projects’ funding (Pulverer, 2018). Consequently, government investment in Open Access inadvertently sustains and benefits for-profit publishing companies by ensuring a continuous stream of revenue through mandatory APCs. This financial re-calibration not only reinforces commercial publishers’ profitability but also reflects a broader reconfiguration in the traditional power structures of scholarly communication (Dudley, 2021). The adoption of Open Science practices has not been without its share of challenges—after all, it is still built on the same foundations and, therefore, inherits many of the same systematic barriers as traditional science (Bahlai et al., 2019; Gownaris et al., 2022). Non-profit-driven models, designed to foster openness and collaboration, face resistance due to the deeply ingrained academic prestige culture (Bosman et al., 2021). The allure of “prestigious” journals and the associated impact factor often act as barriers to embracing alternative, non-profit-driven models (Lawson, 2015), and leads to many journals, even including those with an “open diamond” model, to be not indexed and left out of major citation databases, especially journals from the Global South (Bosman et al., 2021; Bol et al., 2023). This inertia within the system underscores the formidable challenge of reshaping entrenched norms and practices within the scholarly community. 6 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 In science, the conditions for participation are not equal across the globe. If we take a historical perspective based on studies such as those by Aagaard et al. (2020) and Graves et al. (2022), a consistent pattern emerges. Most breakthrough discoveries and research advances tend to come from wealthier regions and countries with robust, high-income economies and advanced infrastructure. This pattern is commonly referred to as “scientific inequality” and is manifested in three key aspects: funding, recognition, and resources. Language diversity emerges as a persistent hurdle in the journey towards Open Science. The dominance of English in scholarly communication marginalizes non-native English speakers, limiting their ability to effectively disseminate their research findings (Amano, Ramírez-Castañeda et al., 2023). Breaking down this language barrier is imperative for realizing the true inclusivity and global reach envisioned by the Open Science movement (Curry & Lillis, 2015) and scientific communication more generally (Rasekoala, 2023). More about this topic is discussed below in section 4. Another significant impediment that hinders widespread participation in Open Science initiatives is the issue of funding. In the case of publication and dissemination of knowledge, the imposition of APCs, shifting financial responsibilities to authors, creates a new set of challenges, particularly for researchers in resource-limited settings. The inability to cover APCs due to funding constraints, inhibits the active engagement of researchers from diverse backgrounds (Nabyonga-Orem et al., 2020). More about this topic is discussed below in section 5. 3. Methods Here, we performed an integrative review, consisting of a conceptual synthesis of a wide range of published studies (Torraco, 2005; Souza et al., 2010; Snyder, 2019), aimed to assess and critique the current state of Global South researchers’ experiences and participation in science, within the context of scientific conduct and community of the Global South (see definition in section 1). The motivation to write this review stemmed from a combination of personal experiences and everyday challenges that result from systemic barriers (see Table A1; Appendix) and reflections on work from authors from diverse fields, which has been woven into a conceptual framework to offer new perspectives on scientific practices. We synthesize conceptual papers, position papers, literature from different scientific disciplines, as well as statements and quotes from individual scientists. This is the result of a collaborative effort of the co-authors, which was coordinated through online communication and internal peerreviewing processes. Our work contributes to the community’s knowledge on how science is practiced currently, and offers guidelines for the future, especially in the context of Open Science. These guidelines are intended to appeal not only to individual scientists, but also institutions. 4. Language barriers It is important to note that inequalities in science are not driven exclusively by economic factors and the distribution of resources. These disparities manifest at the individual level as well (Xie, 2016), particularly concerning communication skills, where language assumes a central role. As Drubin & Kellogg (2012) highlight, the use of English as the lingua franca in scientific communication has implications for global collaboration (Amano, Ramírez-Castañeda et al., 2023). This linguistic dominance, while seemingly unifying, often sidelines non-native English speakers, hindering their ability to access research, publish their work, and engage in scientific discourse (Soares et al., 2023). This 7 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 situation not only disadvantages individual researchers from non-English speaking backgrounds, who find it challenging to compete in the scientific field, but it also impacts the global scientific community (Petersen, 2021). Breaking down language barriers invites a wealth of diverse perspectives, enriching global scientific understanding. Towards this end, practical steps can be implemented. Supporting researchers in language learning, translating crucial scientific texts, indexing non-English journals, and encouraging multilingualism in scientific forums are essential first steps. Such initiatives not only make science more accessible but also nurture a more diverse and vibrant scientific discourse, paving the way for comprehensive and globally inclusive scientific progress. We note that here, and throughout the review, when discussing “language”, we refer to formal, spoken and written language. There are other ways in which the term “language” can be understood when discussing the scientific endeavor. For example, each sub-discipline has their own technical, specific language, which tends to diminish interdisciplinary work (Monteiro & Keating, 2009). Similarly, “language” can reflect Foucault’s concept of “discourse” (Miller, 1990), to understand how academia creates its own rules. However, discussing such interpretations of language regarding scientific research is beyond the scope of this review. 4.1. Prevalence of English in scientific communication According to the Ethnologue website (https://www.ethnologue.com/; a curated database), there are around 7,168 living languages on Earth (Retrieved February 27, 2024). Drubing & Kellog (2012) estimated that less than 15% of the world’s population speaks English, with just 5% being native speakers. Nevertheless, English ranks as the most widely spoken language and is the main language used in science. This extraordinary imbalance emphasizes the importance of recognizing and alleviating the difficulties faced by non-native speakers of English if we are to have a truly global community of scientists. The majority of journals listed in academic indexes, especially those with a high impact factor (publications which typically have a disproportionately high impact on career advancement), publish their content in English (González-Alcaide et al., 2012; Cavacini, 2015; Liu et al., 2018). Publishing in English is also a common practice for career advancement in science, as it often leads to higher citation rates, contributes to job performance, and opens up better opportunities for career mobility. The majority of scientists around the world use English as an additional language (Elnathan, 2021), making it the international language of science, for better or for worse. The prevalence of English as a common language in the scientific community has some advantages, including facilitating communication between researchers from different countries and cultures. Without this common language, international collaboration in science would be significantly more difficult (Drubin & Kellogg, 2012; Woolston & Osório, 2019). In line with this, Steigerwald et al. (2022) highlights the importance of having a central scientific language to facilitate the global dissemination of science and advancement. However, this phenomenon has excluded scientific knowledge generated in other languages. Stockemer & Wigginton (2019) found that about 60% of research papers submitted by non-native English-speaking scientists are written in English. This trend is especially strong among younger researchers, Europeans, and those in the natural sciences (Stockemer & Wigginton, 2019). The idea that writing in English can enhance the global recognition of their work is endorsed by many renowned science publishers, and is a reflection of the capital dominance of English-speaking countries in science— 8 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 as previously discussed. It is also worth noting that, globally, 75% of authors recognize the value of nonEnglish language papers as important sources of information (Amano, Berdejo-Espinola et al., 2023). In the context of conservation research, studies published in non-English languages significantly influence local decision-making (Amano, Berdejo-Espinola et al., 2023; Choi et al., 2024). Unfortunately, these are frequently ignored in global assessments. Research across 37 countries and territories found that non-English-language literature forms a major part of local information sources, accounting for 65% of references in biodiversity assessment reports (Amano, Berdejo-Espinola et al., 2023). This indicates that, by excluding non-English-language science, international evaluations may miss crucial information about local and regional biodiversity (Amano, Berdejo-Espinola et al., 2023; Choi et al., 2024). The scenario described here highlights a major obstacle within the scientific community. Collaborating with scientists from different cultural and educational backgrounds adds energy and creativity to the field. As noted by Meneghini & Packer (2007), many scientists in regions like Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe often publish their research in their native languages within local journals. While this is valuable for their local scientific communities, it can lead to important insights and discoveries being overlooked on the global stage because they are not easily accessible to English-speaking scientists. This language barrier hampers the worldwide sharing of knowledge and opportunities for cross-border collaboration. Ignoring scientific research published in languages other than English can have negative consequences in dataset analyses and science-based policy. For example, global biodiversity assessments regularly ignore non-English scientific literature, resulting in limited analysis and model development, leading to conservation recommendations that lack nuance and flexibility, and local capacity of application (Amano, Berdejo-Espinola et al., 2023). 4.2. Challenges for non-native English speakers One important question, previously raised by Suzina (2021), is whether the English language serves as the lingua franca of science, or rather as a mechanism that sterilizes scientific work. For scientists who are non-native English speakers, to reach a high proficiency level in an additional language is an added hurdle. Scientists are aware that the better they speak English, the easier it is to integrate into the global scientific community and the job market. However, fluency in another language is fundamentally different from being a native speaker. People often think in their mother tongue and translate their thoughts into another language when communicating, a highly demanding cognitive process (McFarlane et al., 2020) that is subjected to scrutiny from native speakers. Beyond the inherent linguistic challenges, many academic journals explicitly require non-native English speakers to have their manuscripts revised by a native speaker prior to submission. This additional step not only increases the time and financial burden on non-native English researchers—who must hire professional editors or seek informal assistance—but also creates a market for English speakers in academic editing. In some cases, this requirement leads to quid pro quo exchanges, where native speakers who merely revise a paper are granted co-authorship despite contributing no intellectual merit to the research. While linguistic clarity is essential for effective communication, such practices raise concerns about fairness and distribution of academic credit. Some have argued that Artificial Intelligence (AI) developments constitute an important tool to overcome such challenges—at least in writing (Golan et al., 2023). 9 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 7. Conclusion Understanding the modern context of science and the effect that large for-profit publishers have in it should make it clear that the importance we give to the impact factor of journals is tied to arbitrary values of “prestige”. It demonstrates that perceived “prestige” relies much more on a social construct than on tangible contributions. With ongoing cultural and technological developments, researchers now have the ability to make the ethos of free—or, at least, almost free—sharing of knowledge as close to a reality as possible. We can already see this happening through the efforts of many individuals that adhere to the idea of open knowledge sharing, such as through the creation of archives and free peer-reviewing networks. This goal is more achievable than ever once we understand that we can make the shift of priority from “prestige” to open access to knowledge and ideas. Mastroianni (2022) advocates for the idea of abolishing the system of peer review as it currently exists, in the formalized structure that often tends to work more as a gatekeeper than an actual evaluation system. If a true open system is one that is accessible to all, all research should be available for scrutiny and feedback from the community and hopefully beyond. Some archives already work as a forum for discussions on manuscripts and most of the issues that arise with publications do not come from peerreview itself, but emerge from systematic reviews and meta-research (van Noorden, 2023; Brainard, 2024). Most mainstream scientific ideas are established through years of dialogue and community discussion, and we miss out on this by gate-keeping and selecting which ideas are accessible and widespread and which ones are not. Measures to achieve epistemic justice must be pursued (Vučkovića and Sikimić, 2023). In philosophy, some efforts in this space already exist, such as the Linguistic Justice Society (https://hiw.kuleuven.be/ripple/research/linguisticjusticesociety). While some mitigating measures have been proposed to achieve epistemic linguistic justice in science (Vučkovića and Sikimić, 2022) and software (Nee et al., 2022), perhaps is time to re-consider the configuration of how science operates at a global scale. Moving beyond Eurocentrism has long been advocated for in philosophy (Dussel, 1993), and the scientific community should recognize and cede space for other ways of knowing and practices (e.g. Kimmerer, 2013; Liboiron, 2021; Levis et al., 2024; McAllister et al., 2025). Of course, this does not mean that journals do not have a place in the future of scientific publication, and there are many services that journals could offer. In the contexts mentioned above, journals could help to manage these forums and discussion boards, rewarding contributors, potentially hiring data scientists for meta-research, and helping to highlight those studies that have been thoroughly investigated and tested, in a “distribute then print” fashion (Paasi, 2005). Another main service discussed here is translation. This would be a major point of interest and investment with potential to grow, especially now with many technological advancements in linguistic software available. This, in turn, would help to reach a much larger audience for publications. Open diamond access, where authors do not have to pay to publish or read, is common in some places and uncommon in other places (Costa & Leite, 2016; Bosman et al., 2021; Kulczycki et al 2025). Authors should not have to make a choice between doing their research (which mostly stems from public funds) or paying for-profit publishers. There are also other strategies that include a decentralized, open access, and open peer review model of publication, such as F1000 (https://f1000research.com/about), LifeCycle Journal (https://lifecyclejournal.org), and Peer Community In (https://peercommunityin.org/). At a 16 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 minimum, authors have argued for “citation consciousness” (Paasi, 2005; Bol et al., 2023), a practice that should help to increase the visibility of Global South authors and journals. One way that journals can aid in this process is by referring authors to relevant publications outside of the Global North. Considering that it is difficult to eliminate the “prestige” culture, prestige should at least be tied to concrete values of transparency, inclusion, and diversity of ideas and experiences for the betterment of science and its contribution to the world (Longino, 1995). Working on the re-evaluation of assessment metrics to be more closely aligned with Open Science best-practices will be key to facilitating this important change. CREDIT statement: CM: Conceptualization; Writing–Original Draft (Abstract, Context of Current Work, Context of Modern Science, Funding Barriers); Writing–Review & Editing; Supervision. RT: Conceptualization; Writing–Original Draft (Abstract, Context of Current Work, Context of Modern Science, Recommendations and Suggestions); Writing– Review & Editing; Supervision; Project Administration. ESJT: Writing–Original Draft (Funding Barriers; Recommendations and Suggestions), Writing–Review & Editing. MG, MGB: Writing–Original Draft (Funding Barriers; Recommendations and Suggestions), Writing–Review & Editing. SSS: Writing–Original Draft (Funding Barriers, Recommendations and Suggestions); Writing–Review & Editing. ET, JCRO, JCS, ACSF: Writing–Review & Editing. HB: Writing–Original Draft (Language Barriers); Writing–Review & Editing. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Luisa Diele-Viegas for first proposing the idea of a collection of writings to discuss the challenges of conducting research in the Global South, and for gathering a great team of researchers for this effort. Without this first seed, this project would have not happened. We are also thankful to the Society of Open, Reliable and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE) for providing the space for a more enriched conversation about this topic in an unconference session during the 2023 SORTEE Conference, which resulted in more insights and partnerships for this manuscript. CM thanks the ANID + Convocatoria Nacional Subvención a Instalación en la Academia, Convocatoria Año 2021 + Folio No. SA77210019, and the Fondecyt Regular Project No. 1240186 (ANID, Convocatoria 2024). RT would like to thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) research agencies for the funding of their post doctorate, during which this manuscript was developed. MG acknowledges the ANID Fondecyt Regular Project No. 1240712. 17 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 References Aagaard, K., Kladakis, A., & Nielsen, M. W. (2020). Concentration or dispersal of research funding?. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 117-149. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00002 Amano, T., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Akasaka, M., De Andrade Junior, M. A. U., Blaise, N., Checco, J., Çilingir, F. G., Citegetse, G., Corella Tor, M., Drobniak, S. M., Giakoumi, S., Golivets, M., Ion, M. C., Jara-Díaz, J. P., Katayose, R., Lasmana, F. P. S., Lin, H.-Y., Lopez, E., Mikula, P., … Zamora-Gutierrez, V. (2023). The role of non-English-language science in informing national biodiversity assessments. Nature Sustainability, 6(7), 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893023-01087-8 Amano, T., Ramírez-Castañeda, V., Berdejo-Espinola, V., Borokini, I., Chowdhury, S., Golivets, M., González-Trujillo, J. D., Montaño-Centellas, F., Paudel, K., White, R. L., & Veríssimo, D. (2023). The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLOS Biology, 21(7), e3002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184 Astell, M., Hrynaszkiewicz, I., Allin, K., Penny, D., Mithu Lucraft, Baynes, G., & Springer Nature Admin. (2018). Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5971387 Bahlai, C., Bartlett, L., Burgio, K., Fournier, A., Keiser, C., Poisot, T., & Whitney, K. (2019). Open Science Isn’t Always Open to All Scientists. American Scientist, 107, 78. https://doi.org/10.1511/2019.107.2.78 Baldwin, M. (2020). Peer Review. Encyclopedia of the History of Science. https://doi.org/10.34758/srdejw27 Beattie, A. (2023). The ‘Global South’ is a pernicious term that needs to be retired. https://www.ft.com/content/7f2e0026-56be-4f3d-857c-2ae3a297daab (Accessed on September 14, 2023). Bertram, M. G., Sundin, J., Roche, D. G., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Thoré, E. S. J., & Brodin, T. (2023). Open science. Current Biology, 33(15), R792–R797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.05.036 18 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 Bol, J. A., Sheffel, A., Zia, N., & Meghani, A. (2023). How to address the geographical bias in academic publishing. BMJ Global Health, 8(12), e013111. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013111 Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., & Proudman, V. (2021). OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704 Brainard, J. (2024). Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers. Science 383(6681): 356. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado2400 Brandt, W. (1980). North South: a programme for survival; report of the independent commission on international development issues. MIT, Cambridge, MA, US. Brembs, B., Huneman, P., Schönbrodt, F., Nilsonne, G., Susi, T., Siems, R., Perakakis, P., Trachana, V., Ma, L., & Rodriguez-Cuadrado, S. (2023). Replacing academic journals. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7), 230206. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230206 Cavacini, A. (2015). What is the best database for computer science journal articles?. Scientometrics, 102(3), 2059-2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1506-1 Choi, J. J., Gaskins, L. C., Morton, J. P., Bingham, J. A., Blawas, A. M., Hayes, C., Hoyt, C., Halpin, P. N., & Silliman, B. (2024). Role of low‐impact‐factor journals in conservation implementation. Conservation Biology, e14391. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14391 Chuan-Peng, H., Xu, Z., Lazić, A., Bhattacharya, P., Seda, L., Hossain, S., ... & Azevedo, F. (2025). Open Science in the Developing World: A Collection of Practical Guides for Researchers in Developing Countries. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251357565 Costa, M. P. D., & Leite, F. C. L. (2016). Open access in the world and Latin America: A review since the Budapest Open Access Initiative. Transinformação, 28(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016002800003 Cunningham, A., & Williams, P. (1993). De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science. The British Journal for the History of Science, 26(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400031447 19 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2015). The Dominance of English in Global Scholarly Publishing. International Higher Education, 46. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2007.46.7948 De Vaan, M., Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2015). Game Changer: The Topology of Creativity. American Journal of Sociology, 120(4), 1144–1194. https://doi.org/10.1086/681213 Drubin, D. G., & Kellogg, D. R. (2012). English as the universal language of science: Opportunities and challenges. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 23(8), 1399–1399. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e1202-0108 Dudley, R. G. (2021). The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive? Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2345 Dussel, E. (1993). Eurocentrism and modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures). Boundary 2, 20(3), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/303341 Elnathan, R. (2021). English is the language of science—But precision is tough as a non-native speaker. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00899-y Fitzhugh, K. (2006). The abduction of phylogenetic hypotheses. Zootaxa, 1145(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1145.1.1 Flowerdew, J. (2019). The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching, 52(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000041 Fung, I. C. (2008). Open access for the non-English-speaking world: Overcoming the language barrier. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-7622-5-1 Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C. M. (2017). Untangling Academic Publishing. University of St Andrews. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100 Fyfe, A., McDougall-Waters, J., & Moxham, N. (2015). 350 years of scientific periodicals. Notes and Records, 69, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0036 Golan, R., Reddy, R., Muthigi, A., & Ramasamy, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence in academic writing: A 20 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 paradigm-shifting technological advance. Nature Reviews Urology, 20(6), 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-023-00746-x Gomes, D. G. E., Pottier, P., Crystal-Ornelas, R., Hudgins, E. J., Foroughirad, V., Sánchez-Reyes, L. L., Turba, R., Martinez, P. A., Moreau, D., Bertram, M. G., Smout, C. A., & Gaynor, K. M. (2022). Why don’t we share data and code? Perceived barriers and benefits to public archiving practices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 289(1987), 20221113. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1113 Gownaris, N. J., Vermeir, K., Bittner, M.-I., Gunawardena, L., Kaur-Ghumaan, S., Lepenies, R., Ntsefong, G. N., & Zakari, I. S. (2022). Barriers to Full Participation in the Open Science Life Cycle among Early Career Researchers. Data Science Journal, 21, 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-002 González-Alcaide, G., Valderrama-Zurián, J. C., & Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2012). The impact factor in non-English-speaking countries. Scientometrics, 92(2), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192012-0692-y Graves, J. L., Kearney, M., Barabino, G., & Malcom, S. (2022). Inequality in science and the case for a new agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(10), e2117831119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117831119 Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books. Hansson, S. O. (2006). Falsificationism Falsified. Foundations of Science, 11(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-004-5922-1 Haraway, D. (1988). The science question in feminism. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Hofstra, B., Kulkarni, V. V., Munoz-Najar Galvez, S., He, B., Jurafsky, D., & McFarland, D. A. (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17), 9284–9291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117 21 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge. Hird, C., David-Chavez, D. M., Gion, S. S., & Van Uitregt, V. (2023). Moving beyond ontological (worldview) supremacy: Indigenous insights and a recovery guide for settler-colonial scientists. Journal of Experimental Biology, 226(12), jeb245302. Kahan, D. M. (2012). Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk. In: S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory (pp. 725–759). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_28 Khelifa, R., Amano, T., & Nuñez, M. A. (2022). A solution for breaking the language barrier. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 37(2), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.11.003 Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions. Kulczycki, E., Gamboa, J. O. A., Beigel, M. F., Digiampietri, L., Laakso, M., Pölönen, J., Taşkın, Z., Velez Cuartas, G. (2025). Beyond the oligopoly: Scholarly journal publishing landscapes in Latin America and Europe. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/cm5uz_v1 Lagisz, M., Bairos-Novak, K. R., Martinig, A. R., Bertram, M. G., Mizuno, A., Shafiei Sabet, S., ... & Nakagawa, S. (2025). Priced out of belonging? Insufficient concessions on membership fees across international societies in ecology and evolution. Proceedings B, 292(2040), 20241430. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.1430 Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 Lawson, S. (2015). Fee Waivers for Open Access Journals. Publications, 3(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3030155 Lees, N. (2011). The dimensions of the divide: Theorising inequality and the Brandt line in international relations. In: Paper presented as part of the Panel ‘South-South Cooperation: History, Concepts, Trends’ at the IPSA-ECPR Joint Conference ‘Whatever Happened to North-South?’, São Paulo, 22 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 Brazil. Levis, C., Rezende, J. S., Barreto, J. P. L., Barreto, S. S., Baniwa, F., Sateré-Mawé, C., ... & Biehl, J. (2024). Indigenizing conservation science for a sustainable Amazon. Science, 386(6727), 12291232. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn5616 Liboiron, M. (2021). Pollution is colonialism. Duke University Press. Liu, F., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Liu, W. (2018). The penalty of containing more non-English articles. Scientometrics, 114(1), 359-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2577-6 Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064506 Marín, C. (2018). Delirios y estereotipos racionalistas en ciencia: Cómo combatirlos desde la consiliencia. Konvergencias, Filosofía Y Culturas En Diálogo, 27, 59–75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327731822_Delirios_y_estereotipos_racionalistas_en_c iencia_como_combatirlos_desde_la_consiliencia Márquez, M. C., & Porras, A. M. (2020). Science Communication in Multiple Languages Is Critical to Its Effectiveness. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00031 Mastroianni, A. (2022, February 23). The rise and fall of peer review. https://www.experimentalhistory.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review McAllister, T. G., Walker, L. A., Smiles, N. D., Jennings, L., Moggridge, B., Naepi, S., ... & MilliganMcClellan, K. (2025). Decolonize scientific institutions, don’t just diversify them. Nature, 644(8076), 331-334. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02516-8 McFarlane, S., Cipolletti Perez, H., & Weissglass, C. (2020). Thinking in a Non-native Language: A New Nudge? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 549083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549083 Meneghini, R., & Packer, A. L. (2007). Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non‐English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication. EMBO Reports, 8(2), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400906 Merton, R. K. (1938). Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England. Osiris, 4, 360– 23 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 632. https://doi.org/10.1086/368484 Miller, S. (1990). Foucault on discourse and power. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, (76), 115-125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41801502 Monteiro, M., & Keating, E. (2009). Managing misunderstandings: The role of language in interdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Science Communication, 31(1), 6-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008330922 Moreira de Oliveira, T., & Bomfim, M. V. de J. (2023). Funding of research agendas about the global south in Latin America and the Caribbean: lexicometric and content analysis in Latin American scientific production. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2023.2218260 Nabyonga-Orem, J., Asamani, J. A., Nyirenda, T., & Abimbola, S. (2020). Article processing charges are stalling the progress of African researchers: A call for urgent reforms. BMJ Global Health, 5(9), e003650. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003650 Nee, J., Smith, G. M., Sheares, A., & Rustagi, I. (2022). Linguistic justice as a framework for designing, developing, and managing natural language processing tools. Big Data & Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221090930 Nolde-Lopez, B., Bundus, J., Arenas-Castro, H., Román, D., Chowdhury, S., Amano, T., BerdejoEspinola, V., & Wadgymar, S. M. (2023). Language barriers in organismal biology: what can journals do better?. Integrative Organismal Biology, 5(1), obad003. https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obad003 Okasha, S. (2016). Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, Academic Capitalism, and the Uneven Geographies of International Journal Publishing Spaces. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 37(5), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3769 Petersen, O. H. (2021). Inequality of Research Funding between Different Countries and Regions is a Serious Problem for Global Science. Function, 2(6), zqab060. 24 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 https://doi.org/10.1093/function/zqab060 Pulverer, B. (2018). Open Access—Or Open Science? The EMBO Journal, 37(24), e101215. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2018101215 Rasekoala, E. (Ed.). (2023). Race and Sociocultural Inclusion in Science Communication: Innovation, Decolonisation, and Transformation (1st ed.). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.5274089 Rivera-Trigueros, I. (2022). Machine translation systems and quality assessment: A systematic review. Language Resources and Evaluation, 56(2), 593–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-095375 Ro, C. (2020). How researchers overturned US sanctions on a virtual summer school. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02347-9 Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009 Santaella Braga, L. (2019). C. S. Peirce’s Abduction, Induction, and Deduction. In: M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_575-1 Shaw, A. K., Fouda, L., Mezzini, S., Kim, D., Chatterjee, N., Wolfson, D., ... & Cagnacci, F. (2025). Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology. Proceedings B, 292(2051), 20250679. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0679 Skupien, S., & Rüffin, N. (2020). The Geography of Research Funding: Semantics and Beyond. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319889896 Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Soares, B. E., Franco, A. C. S., Leal, J. S., Lima, R. G. de S. F., Baker, K., & Griffiths, M. (2023). Decolonising ecological research: A generative discussion between Global North geographers 25 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818