The aim of the present study is to investigate the conceptions and beliefs of Iranian medical faculty members and their experiences in academic publishing in English. There has been a recent and heated controversy over the weight or even the very reality of such biases in the literature of publication research. To contribute to the debate from an empirical perspective, we approached 40 publishing Iranian faculty members (aged from 30 to 62) and elicited their narrated experience as writers/authors dealing with the perceived inequalities in scientific publication in English. Through thematic analysis, four categories were identified as the loci of interaction between the participants' self as micro academic agents and the macro agents in the academic community: 1) plagiarism and unauthenticity; 2) editing and inferiority; 3) journals' criteria and submission; and 4) reliance on students and seniority. In addition, semantic analysis of the adjectives used in the participants' narrated experience revealed self-image profiles that show how the faculty members perceive their authorial self in connection to the perceived structural and linguistic injustice in academic publishing. The findings suggest that linguistic (discursive) and structural (non-discursive) injustices in academic publishing are closely intertwined and must be investigated as such.