Do Editors Hear the Voice of African Scholars? The Importance of Proactive Editorial Policies in Advancing Global IR

Introduction

The International Relations (IR) discipline was built upon a strong center-periphery division. The prevailing dynamics of the discipline tend to disregard the voices, experiences, and views of the overwhelming majority of the societies and states in the world, systematically marginalizing those outside the core countries of the West (Acharya, 2014). Global IR emphasizes the place and agency of non-Western regions and societies in the global order (Acharya, 2014, 2016) and aims to globalize the discipline in terms of its central concepts, assumptions, and main areas of study (Barnett & Zarakol, 2023). It calls for a more extensive involvement of scholars from the Global South as well as a broadening of the scope of the teaching and writing of the discipline (Acharya, 2017). It aims to transform the discipline so that it truly reflects all regions of the world, including the East, West, North, and South. Rather than aiming to replace existing theories, Global IR aims to enrich and expand the horizon of the discipline by recognizing the role and position of the non-Western world (Acharya, 2017).

The Global South has enormous potential to enrich and globalize IR through its histories, political thinkers, and religious and philosophical traditions. Nonetheless, this potential remains largely untapped (Oztig, 2024). While the inequality within the discipline is a comprehensive topic that warrants a wide range of theoretical, empirical, and normative analysis, this Special Issue approaches it specifically from an editorial perspective. Differing from studies that analyze the Global North-Global South dialogue by looking into publishing practices of journals (post-acceptance stage) (see Aydinli & Mathews, 2000), this article engages in an internal, reflective analysis by interrogating the submission stage of articles and emphasizing the active intervention of the editorship.

Alternatives: Global, Local, Political was established in 1975 by scholars who sought to promote innovative theoretical and normative approaches to political, social, cultural, and ecological developments. R. B. J. Walker, who served as the long-term editor of Alternatives, established a legacy of expanding the boundaries of political thought and exploring new political possibilities. This legacy places the journal in a unique position to explore and experiment with innovative editorial practices.

The current impact factor of Alternatives stands at 2.1. The journal maintains a 14% acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts. It is currently ranked 44th among 168 journals in the field of International Relations, placing it among the top 26% of journals in the discipline. This article opens the “black box” of the editorial process, an area that is typically inaccessible to scholarly scrutiny. The country-level data on submissions to Alternatives between 2019 and 2023 shows that of the 40 manuscripts submitted to the journal from African countries, none of them were sent for external peer review. As it is poignantly seen, a high impact factor and ranking of a journal do not always correlate with the geographic diversity of its contributors. While these metric systems grant prestige to the journal and the editorial team, they blatantly obscure patterns of exclusion in the publishing industry.

By building on core Constructivist tenets, this article treats editorial practices not only in terms of editorial management, which includes the initial evaluation of submissions, the overseeing of peer review, and final publication decisions, but also as agentic and constitutive practices. Through strategic outreach to African scholars via social media networks and Africa-focused academic forums as well as the pairing of editorial board members with African scholars, the editorship sought to build bridges across institutional and geographic divides. This Special Issue, thus, constitutes a modest but important attempt to render power asymmetries within the discipline visible and negotiable through collaborative practice. In other words, it brings a novel insight into the Global IR literature by focusing attention on editorial agency, which is an underexplored issue in the IR discipline.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows. The first section discusses the broader dynamics of Global North–South inequalities in the IR discipline as well as the challenges faced by African scholars. The second section draws on the Constructivist perspective to conceptualize editorial agency as a constitutive force, highlighting its importance in bringing inclusivity and diversity within the discipline. The second section places Alternatives under closer scrutiny by revealing submission trends and acceptance rates from 2019 to 2023. The fourth section provides an overview of paired authors and their respective articles. The conclusion reflects on the importance, limitations, and broader implications of this initiative.

The Global North/South Inequality and the African Scholarship

IR is deeply ingrained in Western-centric thinking, which assumes a clear analytical distinction between the West and the non-West (Gran, 1996). The Western-centric discourse, which emerged in the 18th century, drew “an imaginary line of civilizational apartheid” (Hobson, 2007, p. 94) and stripped the non-Western countries and societies of independent identities and agency (Slater, 2004). It has emphasized the superiority of the Global North by emphasizing its ability to create norms, principles, and institutions of the modern international system, while treating the Global South societies as passive actors who need to socialize into these norms, principles, and institutions (Kayaoglu, 2010). Western-centrism in academic disciplines has thus laid the groundwork for the normalization of global structures of inequality (Joseph et al., 1990). These inequalities are further perpetuated through the institutional and social structures of the academic industry. The Global North occupies a dominant position in the production of social science knowledge, marked by its substantial output of research and the widespread dissemination of its ideas and theories across the world (Alatas, 2003).

The dominance of Western-centric epistemologies and North-based publishing houses in the discipline has far-reaching implications for the ways in which social science, particularly IR, is taught and researched (Alatas, 2003). It is important to emphasize that although the Global North and Global South serve as useful categories to distinguish between the center and the periphery, they are not monolithic, since center-periphery dynamics occur within both the Global North and the Global South (Alatas, 2003). Different countries and regions in the Global South are characterized by asymmetries in terms of research output.

For example, Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt produce more social science research than other countries on the African continent (Egbetokun et al., 2022). While there is a wide gap between knowledge production in South Africa and the rest of the African continent, there exist notable inequalities within the South African IR community (Harman & Brown, 2013; Landsberg & Hlophe, 2001). In Latin America, Brazil and Mexico take the lead in social science publications (Keim, 2008). Importantly, regardless of their varying research outputs, all Global South regions share a common characteristic: they are heavily reliant on theories and ideas originating from the Global North (Alatas, 2003). The Global North–South inequalities hinder the comprehensive understanding of global issues and the provision of effective solutions (Oztig, 2024).

The general dynamics of global knowledge production in the social sciences are sharply reflected in the unequal dynamics in IR knowledge production. In analyzing US political science journals between 1970 and 2005, Weaver and Tickner (2009) find that North America is represented by 80%. In their analysis of 17 IR journals from Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, and the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2015, Lohaus and Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar (2020) conclude that these journals have a strong tendency to publish articles submitted by authors located in their own region.

Africa is one of the least represented continents in the IR discipline. In mainstream IR, the continent is often perceived as peripheral in global politics. As Murphy (2001, p. ix) puts it: “more than one out of ten people are African. More than one out of four nations are African. Yet, I would warrant that fewer than one in a hundred university lectures on International Relations given in Europe or North America even mention the continent.” The core of IR theory rarely involves scholars, perspectives, and experiences from the Global South, particularly Africa (Coffie & Tiky, 2021). These discriminatory and exclusionary practices led Beier (2005) to describe IR theory as “advanced colonial practice.” In a similar vein, Layug and Hobson (2023, p. 1) note that “international theory is not truly international but is merely a Western provincialism masquerading as the international/universal.” Major theories such as Marxism, Dependency, and World System approaches appear to be turning the gaze of the IR discipline to Africa. Indeed, these approaches highlight the exploitative nature of international politics (Dunn, 2001). Nonetheless, upon closer examinations, these approaches implicitly perpetuate the Western-centric view that views the continent in the periphery, “an agency-less victim of Great power/core manipulations” (Dunn, 2001, pp. 2–3).

The insufficient representation of African scholars in IR not only limits the diversity of perspectives within the discipline but also perpetuates power imbalances that hinder the advancement of global knowledge production. Adesina (2020, p. 118) elaborates on the challenges faced by African scholars in the following words:

While some of these challenges can be attributed to the western dominance in IR … some of these challenges are internal. First, lack of financial resources (translating into limited funds not only for research but also for library resources and travel) remains one of the most severe restrictions faced by scholars from the continent. This in turn impacts on their ability to attend international conferences, where not only are scholars from the developing world exposed to the latest debates, but, more significantly, their work receives exposure. Material benefits (research funding, travel funding, and library resources) continue to pose a big challenge in African institutions. Most African universities are grossly underfunded, understaffed, ill-equipped with the facilities required for first-class teaching and research, and are sometimes, subject to extensive political interference on the part of the state. African governments need to invest in African universities and to implement policies that facilitate research.

Coffie and Tiky (2021) place attention to the institutional production of ideas in the African context and argue that the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the African Leadership Forum (ALF), Regional Economic Communities (RECs) do not provide a dynamic environment of knowledge production because of their lack of intellectual resources and failure to invest in knowledge production on a continental or regional level. Despite these challenges, African scholars have enormous potential to contribute to the IR scholarship. As Odoom and Andrews (2016) note, African views, experience and ideas pose a challenge to dominant IR theories with their potential to broaden our understanding of IR by offering new light on the much taken for granted concepts such as the state, liberalism and individualism. ¹ Similarly, Harman and Brown (2013) Africa provides profound insights that could challenge conventional ideas regarding the state and governance, as well as liberal assumptions about the nature of the international system. The authors further note that African studies scholars, IR specialists and journals, and policymakers all have important roles to play in overcoming deeply embedded Western-centric biases in IR.

Tieku (2022) African IR scholars tend to adopt a defensive approach to knowledge production, evidenced by significant efforts devoted to legitimizing the importance and necessity of Africa as an object of inquiry for mainstream IR scholars. He further notes that while some African IR scholars focus on the marginalization of Africa by the IR community, others dedicate excessive effort to demonstrating Africa’s agency in global affairs, practices which implicitly perpetuate center-periphery dynamics. Tieku (2022) calls on African IR scholars to change the emphasis from reactionary scholarship to an offensive knowledge production and dissemination by conducting research around key themes: decentering Westphalian IR histories (advancing the field by focusing on the African studies to build a research programthat aims to demonstrate the history of international systems outside of the Westphalian system); recovering indigenous intellectual traditions (systematic engagement with IR ideas generated by African scholars before and after the formation of the modern state system); challenging dominant ontologies and epistemologies; the development of a mid-range and a more textured theory by taking insights from decolonial, and relationality scholarship (Tieku, 2022).

Abrahamsen (2017, p. 125) argues that “bringing Africa into IR cannot be simply a question of ‘add Africa and stir’, as the continent does not enter the discipline as a neutral object of study.” The author argues that engaging with both “Africa” and “the international” raises complex epistemological and methodological issues, particularly the risk of replacing one parochialism with another. The author proposes an assemblage methodology as an effective way to negotiate the meeting between IR and African Studies, adding that “[b]y studying Africa from the ground up, as it is being constantly assembled by a multiplicity of local and global forces, the continent’s politics and societies can be captured as both unique and global, as a window on the contemporary world and its articulation in particular settings” (Abrahamsen, 2017, p. 127). In other words, in assemblage perspective, Africa is not regarded as a remote region whose significance must be established within academic disciplines. It is rather seen as a window through which to view our contemporary world is understood (Abrahamsen, 2017).

By the same token, Niang (2016) argues that revisiting the history of Africa, particularly deep interrogation of major historical events in the continent can help displace the centrality of Western-centric view on the evolution of the international order and society and pave the way for new perspectives on IR. The author calls for a decolonization of IR pedagogy and theory by drawing on African experiences, intellectual resources, and historical deliberations to generate new, universally relevant understandings of global morality, rights, and the international order. Similarly, Smith (2009) argues that the African context brings novel political, cultural, social and economic experiences and knowledge that can further IR theory development. The author suggests that the transcendence of disciplinary boundaries of IR is essential to uncover potential African contributions to IR, noting that “if we entertain the notion that disciplinary boundaries are largely constructed, this opens up a range of possibilities for identifying new sources of ‘IR’” (Smith, 2009, p. 275).

The Special Issue organized by Coffie and Tiky (2021) presents a challenge to the traditional view that frames African agents (states, organizations, and diplomats) as consumers of international norms produced by the Global North. This Special Issue brings into focus African agency across three domains. First, it refrains from seeing Africa as a monolithic entity. Instead, it emphasizes collaboration and collective engagement of African states and non-state actors in international politics. Secondly, it outlines the diverse characteristics of African agency through the examination of the various players from different regions both inside and beyond the continent who are collectively identified as African. Thirdly, it underlines that the domains in which African actors wield influence are wide and overlapping, which include bilateral partnerships, multilateral intergovernmental relations, and regional or interregional cooperation.

Proactive Editorial Approach and the IR Discipline

This Special Issue brings into the spotlight the importance of editorial intervention to increase the visibility of African scholars in the IR discipline and foster a more inclusive and diverse academic environment. The Global North-South inequality in the discipline is a complex phenomenon that is perpetuated at global, regional, and local levels (Oztig, 2022, 2024). This article, thus, highlights the role of the agentic capabilities of editors in making a change in the IR discipline. It moves beyond the traditional call for diversity toward a more agentic/interventionist editorial model.

The article particularly builds on the Constructivist perspective to highlight the link between proactive editorial approaches and the IR discipline. Constructivism sees the world “as a project under construction” instead of a finished project (Adler, 2002, p. 128). Building on a “transformational ontology” (Locher & Prugl, 2001), it occupies a middle ground between Rationalism and Postmodernism (Checkel, 1998; Christiansen et al., 1999). It is based on the worldview that “the manner in which the material world shapes and is shaped by human action and interaction depends on dynamic normative and epistemic interpretations of the material world” (Adler, 1997, p. 322).

The Constructivist viewpoint sees the social world in terms of “intersubjectively and collectively meaningful structures and processes” (Adler, 2002, p. 136). In this regard, it is wedded to “metatheoretical commitment” through its focus on the interconnectedness between meaning and social reality (Guzzini, 2000; Pouliot, 2007). From a methodological lens, Constructivism “denaturalizes” the social world in order to explore the constitution and reconstitution of identities, institutions, and practices are constructed (Hopf, 1998). In Guzzini’s words (2000. p. 147). Constructivism is “epistemologically about the social construction of knowledge and ontologically about the construction of social reality.”

From a Constructivist perspective, objects of knowledge are not independent of discursive practices (Guzzini, 2000). Following in the footsteps of the hermeneutical tradition, Constructivism highlights the difference between the natural and the social world by focusing on the construction of social reality through a system of codes, practices, and symbols (Guzzini, 2000). In Wendt’s (1995, p. 73) words, “material resources only acquire meaning for human action through the structure of shared knowledge in which they are embedded.” Wendt’s argument, “[t]here are not structures without agents, and no agents…without structures,” eloquently captures Constructivist view on structure and agency (Wendt, 1995, p. 186). In Wendt’s words (1987, p. 359):

Social structures have an inherently discursive dimension in the sense that they are inseparable from the reasons and self-understandings that agents bring to their actions. This discursive quality does not mean that social structures are reducible to what agents think they are doing, since agents may not understand the structural antecedents or implications of their actions. But it does mean that the existence and operation of social structures are dependent upon human self-understandings; it also means that social structures acquire their causal efficacy only through the medium of practical consciousness and action.

Overall, according to the Constructivist understanding, social structures produce the practices of knowledgeable agents, but they are also produced and reproduced by these practices (Locher & Prügl, 2001). Constructivism, thus, emphasizes the agency of individuals by underlining that individual actors could shape and reshape social structures through their practices (Wendt, 1987). From a Constructivist perspective, when individuals act as agents, they take action to fulfill certain objectives. As Onuf (2013, p. 9) puts it “[a]gents make choices in light of the skills that they possess and the resources that they have access to, for reasons that they are more or less able to articulate. In short, they make choices in pursuit of their interests.”

In summary, there is a mutually constitutive relationship between social structures and practices of agents (Wendt, 1987). Social practices can reproduce the intersubjective meanings that constitute agents and social structures (Hopf, 1998). Building on this Constructivist perspective, this article treats the IR discipline as a “structure” that constituted and reconstituted by the IR research and practices of scholars as well as journal editors. Rather than treating editors as gate keepers, this article highlights their agentic capabilities in constituting and reconstituting the IR discipline. IR journals play important roles by acting as a medium through which research becomes visible in the discipline. Bringing editorial practices into the spotlight can pave the way for more inclusive and innovative practices.

The African Scholars in Alternatives: Global, Local, Political

Alternatives: Global, Local, Political was established in 1975 by scholars who were concerned with more sustainable forms of development. The journal focused on the implications of globalization and has consistently aimed to advance diverse critical, normative, and interdisciplinary approaches regarding political, social, cultural, and ecological developments, while fostering creative and imaginative approaches to thinking and acting in a rapidly evolving world. It has particularly sought to promote sophisticated theoretical engagements with processes that appear to be reshaping relations between global and local, or universality and particularity, in ways that contest dominant beliefs about political life within and between states. R. B. J. Walker served as the long-term editor of Alternatives, establishing a legacy of critical inquiry into the boundaries of political thought and exploring alternative political possibilities. He has been a leading figure in the development of international political theory, international political sociology, critical international relations theory, critical security studies, border studies, and globalization theory. His editorship and scholarly works continue to inspire generations of scholars toward critical reflexivity and theoretical imagination (see Walker, 1993).

Currently, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political has an impact factor of 2.1. It maintains a 14% acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts. As of 2024, it ranks 44th among 168 journals in the field of International Relations, placing it firmly within the upper quartile—that is, among the top 26% of journals in the discipline. Table 1 presents data on manuscript submissions to Alternatives between 2019 and 2023. The data is provided from SAGE’s submission system, SAGE Track. The results reveal a striking regional imbalance. African countries are the least represented region in the journal. Submissions from Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe were all desk-rejected, with none going through external peer review.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Report: 2019–2023 Submission by Country

Total submissions from African countries	40
Total accepted submissions from African countries	0
Total rejected submissions from African countries	40

Country/Region	Accept ratio
Algeria	0%
Cameroon	0%
Egypt	0%
Ethiopia	0%
Ghana	0%
Kenya	0%
Nigeria	0%
Tanzania, United Republic of	0%
Zimbabwe	0%
Albania	0%
Argentina	50%
Australia	14,8%
Austria	33,3%
Azerbaijan	0%
Bangladesh	0%
Belgium	0%
Brazil	28,6%
Canada	15,4%
Chile	0%
China	0%
Colombia	33,3%
Cyprus	0%
Czech Republic	33,3%
Denmark	50,0%
Dominican Republic	0%
Ecuador	0%
Estonia	25,0%
Finland	0%
France	50,0%
Germany	37,5%
Hong Kong	0%
Hungary	33,3%
India	0%
Indonesia	0%
Iran (the Islamic Republic of)	0%
Iraq	0%
Israel	14,3%
Italy	0%
Japan	0%
Jordan	0%
Kazakhstan	0%
Korea (the Republic of)	7,1%
Kuwait	0%
Latvia	100%
Lebanon	0%
Macao	0%
Macedonia (the former Yugoslav republic of)	0%
Malaysia	0%
Mexico	50%
Mongolia	0%
Montenegro	0%
Morocco	0%
Netherlands	25%
Norway	33,3%
Pakistan	0%
Poland	11,1%
Portugal	33,3%
Qatar	0%
Romania	0%
Russian Federation	0%
Saudi Arabia	0%
Serbia	0%
Singapore	20%
Slovakia	100%
Slovenia	0%
South Africa	0%
Spain	20%
Sweden	60%
Taiwan	0%
Thailand	0%
Turkey	21,5%
Ukraine	0%
United Arab Emirates	0%
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	48,6%
United States	28%
Uruguay	0%
Uzbekistan	0%
Viet Nam	0%

This result is particularly disheartening for a journal that aspires to be representative of global scholarly diversity. To enhance the visibility and participation of African scholars within Alternatives, the editorial convened a series of meetings with the editorial board. As a result of these deliberations, the board collectively agreed to adopt a more proactive and strategic approach to increase the representation of African scholars in the journal’s publications. The Associate Editor Dr. Umut Can Adisonmez (Department of Political Science and International Relations, Izmir University of Economics) played an active role in the organization of the Special Issue.

Four editorial board members volunteered to co-author articles with African scholars for the Special Issue. These members include Alistair D. Edgar (School of International Policy and Governance, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada); and Alexander Spencer (Faculty of Humanities, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Germany), Åshild Kolås (Peace Research Institute, Oslo, Norway), and Aliaksei Kazharski (Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic).

The editorial team then reached out to African scholars through social media, personal networks, and particularly WhatsApp groups. African scholars who volunteered to participate in this initiative were then matched with the editorial board members. It is important to emphasize that this Special Issue was not organized around a single unifying theme. Co-authorships were based on shared research interests. Consequently, the Special Issue features a diverse array of topics, each reflecting the unique intellectual collaboration between the paired authors. The primary objective of this Special Issue was to cultivate collaboration and partnerships between the editorial board and African scholars with the objective of increasing diversity.

The Special Issue on African Scholars

As part of this Special Issue, Dr. Edgar collaborated with Dr. Victor Chidubem Iwuoha, who serves as Alexander von Humboldt experienced researcher at the University of Bayreut. He is also affiliated with the Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. ² Their article titled “European Biometric Border System, Securitization and (Im) mobilities in West Africa,” examines the negative consequences of the European biometric border system and securitization measures implemented in West Africa (Iwuoha & Edgar, 2024). Using Niger as a case study, the authors argue that these measures are detrimental to both African migrants and security objectives in both regions. The article discusses how the EU’s use of “biometric power” subverts African states’ sovereignty and administrative control while maintaining global inequalities in (im) mobility governance. Importantly, the authors emphasize that migrants and smugglers are actively developing agentic mechanisms—such as creating parallel border routes—to contest and circumvent the European biometric control and assert their freedom of movement. This research concludes that the EU’s approach is ineffective and unsustainable, paving the way for the criminalization of migrants and the strengthening of smuggling networks (Iwuoha & Edgar, 2024).

Dr. Alex collaborated with Mr. Okoye (Graduate Research Associate at Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg) and Dr. Adegboyega Ola (researcher at Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria). Their article titled “Internal Displacement and the Framing of InsURGENCY: A Predicate Analysis of Media Reporting on Boko Haram in Nigeria” examines the role of media reporting on insurgency (Ola et al., 2025). By using a discourse analysis on Twitter/X posts from four major Nigerian news outlets between 2011 and 2019, counting specific “urgency words” and comparing the results with data on terrorism and displacement, the authors demonstrate that rather than the actual level of violence, the levels of urgency in media reporting correlates with levels of internal displacement (Ola et al., 2025).

Dr. Kolås was paired with Grace Akosua Dankwa (Centre for Alternative Politics and Security, West Africa, Accra, Ghana). Their article titled “Towards Issue-Based Party Politics in Ghana” analyzes the change in Ghana’s electoral politics from a focus on personalities and ethnic loyalties toward substantive socio-political issues, such as youth employment, education funding, and corruption (Dankwa & Kolås, 2025). Employing a qualitative content analysis of political party manifestos, social media discourse, and interviews with major party officials, the article examines the general elections held between 2016 and 2024. The findings suggest that an increasing prioritization of policy and issues is contributing to a more responsive and citizen-centered form of governance in Ghana, emphasizing pathways for democratic consolidation in Africa (Dankwa & Kolås, 2025).

Dr. Aliaksei Kazharski and his colleague Dr. Michaela Grančayová (Department of International and Diplomatic Studies, Prague University of Economics and Business, Prague, Czech Republic) collaborated with Dr. Bizuneh Yimenu (Center for Public Policy and Administration, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK). They wrote an article in a cross-dialogue format (titled Peripheralities and Their Effects: A Cross-Regional Reflection on Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa) in an attempt to explore the ways in which the concept of peripherality can pave the way for the understanding of long-terms pattern of development in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) (Grančayová et al., 2025). The dialog starts with the notes of Grančayová and Kazharski on CEE’s “transitive peripherality.” Subsequently, Yimenu responds, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two regions. He concludes that, similar to the CEE, the MENA’s experience of peripherality is not a static condition inherited from history, but rather a political and social position that is constantly negotiated (Grančayová et al., 2025).

Discussion and Conclusion

As this article has shown, a journal’s high impact factor and ranking do not necessarily correlate with the geographic diversity of its contributors. Although metric-driven systems confer prestige upon the journal and the editorial team and incentivize submissions, they may also reproduce forms of intellectual conformism, whereby commitments to diversity and inclusivity are acknowledged discursively yet insufficiently implemented in everyday editorial practices. In this sense, conventional indicators can conceal enduring patterns of exclusion embedded within the discipline’s structures of knowledge production. Building on the Constructivist perspective that emphasizes the dynamic relationship between structures and agents, this article treats editorship as an agentic and constitutive practice rather than a neutral administrative function.

This Special Issue epitomizes a proactive editorial approach that moves beyond traditional gatekeeping practices. Yet, this initiative is not without limitations. First, the proactive editorial approach, implemented in this Special Issue, was limited in scale and scope, involving a small number of co-authored articles. In this context, it should not be read as a comprehensive solution to the structural inequalities that perpetuate knowledge production in the discipline. Second, the initiative reached out to African scholars through social media and WhatsApp academic networks, which may have inadvertently favored more internationally and digitally connected scholars.

Nevertheless, the importance of this initiative lies in its reflexive and experimental approach, rather than its numerical output. Given its modest scale and scope, this initiative does not claim to eliminate the overarching inequalities within the discipline; rather, it seeks to render them visible, contestable, and negotiable through collaborative editorial practice. By opening the “black box” of editorial decision-making, the article invites journals to reflect critically on the ways in which editorial practices can reproduce or disrupt existing hierarchies.

Importantly, the editorial strategy adopted in this Special Issue has implications that go beyond African scholarship. While this Special Issue focused on African scholars, the editorial model developed here is transferable to other underrepresented regions, institutions, and scholarly communities. Future editorial interventions could implement and advance this editorial strategy by adapting it to different regional, linguistic, and disciplinary contexts, thereby extending its impact and reach at regional and global scales.