In this research, we analyzed all 79 Web of Science (WoS) indexed journals in communication and media studies to disclose main publication patterns. We found that English-language countries dominate the field in a greater extent than in other disciplines, and developing countries are in a weaker position than English-language developed countries not just in natural sciences but also in soft sciences. We found significant correlations between the nominal GDP, the per capita publication, and per capita GDP of a given country and its publication scores.

This article tests whether the geographic diversity of editorial boards affects the diversity of research papers. Based on a content analysis of 84 journals listed in the Journal Citation Report, we show that diverse editorial boards are more likely to publish more diverse research articles, based on the country of origin of the first author and on where the data were collected. Our findings also indicate a negative association between (a) the impact factor and diversity of the research approach, (b) the journal’s affiliation to an academic association and diversity in the first author’s country of origin and the country of data collection, and (c) the founding year of the publication and the country of data collection. Finally, the founding year of the publication is explored as a moderator.

This paper expands the framework of the Bourdieusian field theory using a world-system theoretical perspective to analyze the global system of social sciences, or what might be called the world-system of knowledge production. The analysis deals with the main agents of the world-system of social sciences, and it also investigates the core-like and periphery-like processes of the system. Our findings affirm that a very characteristic center-periphery structure exists in global social sciences, with a few hegemonic countries and distinctly peripheral world regions. Our analysis not just presents empirical data on power structures in global social sciences but it also offers meaningful typologies for analysis of the roles different world regions play in maintaining the world-system of global knowledge production. The paper also proposes a three-dimensional model by which both geographical and social/institutional center-periphery relations may be analyzed.

In the current article, we tested our hypothesis by which high-impact journals tend to have higher Article Processing Charges (APCs) by comparing journal IF metrics with the OA publishing fees they charge. Our study engaged with both journals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and included Hybrid, Diamond and No OA journals. The overall findings demonstrate a positive relationship between APCs and journals with high IF for two of the subject areas we examined but not for the third, which could be mediated by the characteristics and market environment of the publishers. We also found significant differences between the analysed research fields in terms of APC policies, as well as differences in the relationship between APCs and the IF across periodicals. The study and analysis conducted reinforces our concerns that Hybrid OA models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production.

For many years, scholars have accepted the pedagogic, practical, and theoretical universalization of journalism standards. Benchmarks on what journalists, teachers, or researchers should do in their day-to-day activities were set in the West. While a small group of scholars questioned or openly challenged this philosophy, many acquiesced. However, the era of sustained Western discourse dominance seems over if unremitting calls for re-theorization are anything to go by (Glück, 2018;Mitchelstein & Boczkowski, 2021;Mohammed, 2021).The purpose of this Invited Forum is to add to the growing calls for reconceptualization of the field and to recognize the importance of context in defining, directing, and determining journalism's role in society (