Hidden Inequities in Peer Review: Integrating Geographic, Ethnic, and Linguistic Bias

Peer review is often portrayed as the foundation of fairness in science, yet growing evidence reveals hidden inequities that undermine this ideal. Beyond geographic and ethnic disparities (where same-country reviewers, limited reviewer diversity, and editorial gatekeeping privilege particular regions), recent scholarship points to a subtler but pervasive linguistic bias. Scholars who use English as a foreign language may have their work more harshly judged, not because of scientific quality but due to deviations from norms of international academic English. However, philosophical analyses caution that “linguistic bias” encompasses distinct phenomena that must be separated to avoid overgeneralization, while empirical evidence remains mixed and methodologically limited. Experimental research indicates that reviewers may rate identical scientific content lower when written in non-standard English, suggesting that language fluency can inadvertently influence judgments of quality. Structural issues such as gender imbalance, institutional prestige, and reviewer fatigue further distort evaluation outcomes. Together, these intersecting forms of bias weaken the meritocratic ideal of peer review and perpetuate epistemic inequities in global knowledge production. Addressing them requires systemic reforms, mandatory reviewer training on bias awareness, expansion of reviewer diversity, linguistic and editorial support for non-native authors, and transparency in editorial decision-making. This integrated perspective underscores that genuine fairness in peer review demands recognizing and mitigating linguistic, geographic, and institutional asymmetries which silence underrepresented voices and constrain the inclusivity of global scholarship.