The Social Construction of Knowledge in International Relations Publishing (Editorial Blindness, Bias, and Epistemic Gatekeeping)

This article analyzes how editorial processes in leading International Relations (IR) journals reproduce global epistemic inequalities. It focuses on International Security (IS) and International Studies Quarterly (ISQ) to identify two interrelated dynamics: editorial bias, which privileges scholars affiliated with Western institutions, and editorial blindness, which narrows thematic scope despite broad declared aims. Using original empirical data and a novel formal framework—the Probabilistic Article Acceptance Model (PAAM) and Editorial Blindness Index (EBI)—the study finds that 95.5% of IS and 92.3% of ISQ primary authors affiliate with Western institutions. Furthermore, it demonstrates that IS narrows its thematic focus toward traditional and U.S.-centric security concerns, while ISQ maintains thematic plurality. These findings align with Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic capital and Kuhn’s paradigm theory, indicating that editorial decisions reflect social and institutional structures more than epistemic merit. The article introduces Epistemic Gatekeeping Dynamics (EGD) as a new theoretical framework, arguing that editorial processes act as selective mechanisms of epistemic legitimacy. It concludes by recommending structural reforms and editorial diversification to promote pluralism and inclusivity in IR publishing.