Search

An editorial is presented on poor record of publishing scholarship conducted outside of the US. Topics include experience of geographically based academic inequity and a passion for improving access to publishing; and core member of the organizing committee to avoid accidental reproduction of oppressive patterns within the group's activities and discussions.

AbstractDespite recent calls to engage in scholarship with attention to anti-racism, equity, and social justice at a global level in Health Professions Education (HPE), the field has made few significant advances in incorporating the views of the so-called “Other” in understanding the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge as well as the epistemic justification of knowledge production. Editors, authors, and reviewers must take responsibility for questioning existing systems and structures, specifically about how they diffuse the knowledge of a few and silence the knowledge of many. This article presents 12 recommendations proposed by The Global South Counterspace Authors Collective (GSCAC), a group of HPE professionals, representing countries in the Global South, to help the Global North enact practical changes to become more inclusive and engage in authentic and representative work in HPE publishing. This list is not all-encompassing but a first step to begin rectifying non-inclusive structures in our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractWhat was the Educational Challenge?What was the Proposed Solution?How was the Proposed Solution Implemented?What Lessons Learned are Relevant to a Wider Audience?What are the Next Steps?Representation gaps in medical education publishing are widely recognized and may be attributed to epistemic injustice, defined as ‘wrong done to someone in their capacity as a knower.’ Although peer review is meant to ensure ‘rigor,’ some quality assurance practices can inadvertently silence entire populations and impede understanding of a field’s foundational concepts.To honor our journal’s commitment to equitable knowledge production, a diversity, equity, and inclusion working group at Teaching and Learning in Medicine (TLM) reimagined rigor to include striving for a ‘more equitable, diverse, and inclusive research system.’We implemented structural peer review reform at TLM by adapting Hogan et al.’s Dimensionality and R4P framework for health equity, prioritizing change in our communication with contributors.Since implementation, our journal has received feedback expressing appreciation for humanity and personal connection in our peer review, and we have observed increased publications from geographically marginalized authors. We believe our outcomes result from respecting marginalized authors’ authority to pursue their own interests, concerns, and successes with respect to knowledge production.We believe our approach can be adopted by other peer-reviewed journals. We invite application and critique of our framework to advance community development in creating relevant, accessible, and equitable knowledge production for all people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]