Rewriting the Politics of Publication: Tracking 25 Years of Debate in Academic Reform with Bibliometric Analysis

Academic publishing is central to scholarly knowledge validation and dissemination, yet persistent issues such as editorial gatekeeping, prestige-driven evaluation metrics, and global inequities in knowledge access continue to shape the field. These challenges have significant implications for research integrity, inclusivity, and the equitable dissemination of educational scholarship. The conversation around these topics is on-going, but little is known about how these discussions have evolved within the scholarly literature. This study presents a three-fold bibliometric analysis of scholarly literature on academic publishing reform published between 2000 and 2025. The analysis examines the literature landscape on the topics of (1) Gatekeeping and Editorial Bias, (2) Prestige-driven Metrics and Research Assessment, and (3) Barrier and Equity Issues in Research Accessibility. Using structured searches in Scopus and bibliometric analysis techniques (i.e., performance and conceptual analysis), this study identifies key publication trends and thematic patterns within each area. Time-sliced analyses further explore how discourse has shifted in response to major milestones such as the San Francisco Declaration on research assessment and the rise of the sci-hub shadow library. By providing a comprehensive overview of how these critical conversations have evolved across global scholarship, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamics, thereby shaping the future of scholarly communication and offering insights to inform ongoing reform efforts for educators, researchers, and policymakers to foster a more inclusive, transparent, and equitable academic publishing landscape.