Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 23, No. 2 (2026)

The Cost Of Representation: How The Publication Process Impacts Black Researchers In Writing Studies

Ronada Dominique
Northern Virginia Community College
rhewitt@gmu.edu

Abstract

The relationship between academic journals, researchers and editors is one worthy of study to better understand the publication process. Inquiry into the dynamics between these three entities could reveal information on what is published, when, and by whom; answering questions that often fall into an academic abyss of norms no one quite understands. More specifically, it could facilitate discourse on representation in academic journals. This article explains a completed study centering academic journals specific to NCTE and evaluates if Black research is sufficiently published to effectively contribute to the epistemological processes of the composition and rhetoric field. Utilizing discourse analysis and survey and interview data from researchers and editors, this exploration includes an article review of the top journal in writing studies, College Composition and Communication, and utilizes survey and interview methods, to reveal the intricate relationship between scholars, editors, and academic journals that determine the trajectory of research focus in the field.

Introduction

In James Berlin’s overview of writing instruction in American colleges from 1900 to 1985, he discusses the development of the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) but omits the fact that Black scholars were not granted full membership in NCTE until the 1970s (Gilyard, 1999, p. 631). In addition to Gilyard, Perryman-Clark (2009) and Kynard (2013) also extensively research and discuss the influences of Black scholars in the field. However, the efforts of such are not included in any “History of Composition” texts written by a non person of color. This was discovered while attempting to complete a literature review for this research. Such a bifurcation is not only a physical representation of otherness, but results in a gap in research and discourse and hinders scholars and students, like myself, from learning and applying such knowledge. 

Racial dynamics have infiltrated all industries, including academia. From integrating K-12 schools to those responsible for developing first year writing programs, this gap in visible representation of Black influences on writing studies has detrimental implications. As a student, I have experienced the alienating effects of searching for research from my cultural perspective and coming up empty handed. This caused me to question where the Black people at in journals like College Composition and Communication (CCC), a flagship journal in writing studies. I argue:

1. Scholarship that centers the experiences of Black individuals remains underrepresented within CCC. Additionally, the historical contributions of Black scholars to the development of the composition field have often been overlooked or insufficiently acknowledged. This lack of representation not only misrepresents their contributions to the field but also perpetuates inequitable learning environments, particularly for Black students and other students of color, who may struggle to see their identities and experiences reflected in the discipline.

2. Just as we examine the relationship between students and their writing processes to better understand how these dynamics shape their learning, we must also explore the relationship between emerging researchers and academic professionals and their writing responsibilities that often include publication. Understanding how these interactions influence the professional growth and development of emerging researchers is essential to fostering more equitable and supportive academic environments.

For this study, I conducted a corpus analysis of College Composition and Communication (CCC), aligning cultural movements and advancements that have contributed to educational expansion. These included the Civil Rights and Black Power movements (1956–1969); linguistic justice efforts such as the ‘Students’ Right to Their Own Language’ resolution, the Oakland Ebonics Resolution and Ann Arbor Decision (1972–2000); and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement (2014–2022). By examining these distinct periods, I tracked the frequency of articles centered on the Black Experience (BE) to assess how, over the past fifty years, CCC has engaged with scholarship specific to Black communities. Framing this journal review through the lens of critical race theory, specifically the tenet of the normalization of racism, I argue that the belief in the permanence of racism has functioned as a moral and structural rationale within writing studies. This rationale has supported discriminatory practices such as the exclusion of scholars of color from full participation in organizations like NCTE and MLA, and the deliberate marginalization of Black scholars’ voices at College Composition and Communication Conference (4Cs), while allowing white scholars to discuss Black issues.

To complement the corpus analysis, I surveyed researchers who have submitted to NCTE-affiliated journals, including College Composition and Communication, English Journal, College English, and Teaching English in the Two-Year College. I also conducted interviews with editors of these journals, most of whom represent the publications frequented by the researchers surveyed. While my initial focus on College Composition and Communication posed challenges in participant recruitment, I expanded the scope to include other NCTE journals. I believed that the issues I identified were not specific to CCC but represented broader patterns across disciplines and journals. By engaging with additional NCTE journals, I was able to maintain an inclusive scope with correlative data sets. 

The survey and interview data examined the experiences of both researchers and journal editors to address a broader inquiry: where scholars are choosing to publish their work and, more importantly, why they select journals and how they experience the submission process. Findings revealed several challenges, including extensive delays between initial manuscript submission and feedback, insufficient or conflicting reviewer comments, and confusion that left some researchers unable to complete the submission process. These difficulties were mirrored in the experiences of journal editors, who described obstacles such as difficulty securing adequate reviewers and maintaining timely review processes. The perspectives of both groups uncovered critical insights into the misconceptions and structural processes that shape the publishing process. These findings enabled me to apply social justice frameworks, particularly those advanced by Young (1990) and Jones, Walton, and Moore (2019), to argue for a reimagining of scholarly publishing practices. By centering justice for both contributors and gatekeepers, the field has an opportunity to enact meaningful changes that prioritize equity in more systematic and sustainable ways.

Through an analysis of College Composition and Communication publications alongside the experiences of researchers and editors, I have examined the complexities of journal submission processes: submission, peer review, acceptance, and editing, and how the process intersects with the Black Experience. My corpus analysis revealed that “over a 50-year span, only 4% of published scholarship in CCC explicitly centered the Black experience” (Hewitt, 2024, p. 9). This finding, supported by qualitative data from surveys and interviews, underscores systemic underrepresentation. Drawing from social justice frameworks of Jones, Walton, and Moore (2019) in technical communication, I interpret these patterns through a critical lens that highlights how normalized editorial and review practices perpetuate structural inequities. In the discussion section, I argue that CCC might reconsider its preference of distributive justice models and instead embrace restorative justice practices to dismantle exclusionary structures and empower historically marginalized voices.

As higher education and writing studies enters another pivotal period similar to the era of the Students’ Right to Their Own Language (SRTOL), the current focus on social and linguistic justice makes this an ideal moment to engage with my research and its recommendations. Editors may find this work especially relevant as they strive to improve representation, enhance the relevance of their journals, and continue shaping the legacy of academic publishing. Additionally, scholars navigating the often mystified and discouraging editorial process may find clarity and support through this research. I believe that genuine diversity does not simply integrate into existing structures, just or unjust, but instead seeks to transform those systems, fostering new frameworks where everyone’s expertise contributes to a more unified and equitable whole.

Methods and Methodology

To explore the complex relationship between academic journals, researchers and editors, and the broader goals of educational justice and inclusion, I employed a mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2014; Bryman, 2012). This allowed me to triangulate the perspectives of researchers and editors alongside data from the College Composition and Communication journal. The analysis draws on both qualitative and quantitative data, interpreted primarily through a critical race theoretical framework that centers race in examining the systems and structures perpetuating racism and inequality (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano, 1998). This framework is further informed by Black Feminist Standpoint Theory (Hill Collins, 1997, 1998, 2000) and theories of social justice (Walton, Moore, & Jones, 2019; Young, 1990). At the heart of this research is an inquiry into how frequently College Composition and Communication publishes work that centers the Black Experience.

I chose to examine College Composition and Communication because it is considered the flagship journal in the field of composition. Established in 1949, it was the first journal in writing studies to focus specifically on composition as a discipline, as well as on the role of first-year writing courses in addressing the growing need for effective student writing in higher education. The journal’s articles capture the evolving ideas and influences that shaped the field during its efforts to establish itself professionally. Given its historical and discipline specific significance, it was the best choice for analyzing how the field has developed.

I chose to evaluate the experiences of Black scholars because I am a Black woman conducting research about Black people. The absence of Black epistemological perspectives in my graduate coursework led me to question the visibility and inclusion of Black voices in the field of writing studies. This concern was amplified when I struggled to complete an assignment forcing me to reflect deeply about my positionality as a Black student navigating a so-called diverse campus, yet within predominantly white classrooms.

One of the central claims of Feminist Standpoint Theory is that “marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things and ask questions than it is for the non-marginalized” (Bowell, 2011). Research shows that Black individuals are often socially conditioned to remain conscious of their racial identity and the implications it presents in predominantly white spaces. I am not alone. Many Black students and professionals in higher education report negative experiences rooted in racial disparities (Burrows, 2016; Brush, 2001; Turner, 2002; Schwartz, 2003). By centering the Black Experience in this study, I aim to counteract the historical erasure and suppression of Black voices by dominant white narratives.

This study employs a mixed-methods approach of quantitative and qualitative approaches as well as both corpus analysis and content analysis to examine the College Composition and Communication (CCC) journal from 1955 to 2023. Guided by Tunison’s (2023) framing of content analysis as both quantitative and qualitative in nature, the study utilizes a coded keyword framework to identify, categorize, and summarize articles that engage with the Black Experience. Tunison explains that the qualitative dimension of content analysis “starts with bodies of text; sets linguistic units of analysis (e.g., words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs) and categories for those units; pores over the texts to code and categorize them; and both tallies and documents the frequency of occurrence of whatever linguistic unit was selected” (p. 86).

Discourse analysis, citation analysis, and article analysis have long been employed to measure the impact of research and to interrogate the epistemological influences that shape academic disciplines. Citation analysis, as Coffey (2006) outlines, offers a means of tracing scholarly influence and the visibility of particular bodies of knowledge, while article analysis and discourse analysis, such as those conducted by Adams and Miller (2022), McKinley and Rose (2018), and Clary-Lemon (2019), examine how language, themes, and rhetorical patterns reflect deeper ideological investments within journals. These methods are not simply descriptive but also diagnostic, helping to uncover how knowledge is developed and verified within disciplinary boundaries.

A qualitative approach was essential for this study to capture the nuanced experiences of editors and researchers in writing studies. However, the data collection process also reflects an “explanatory sequential mixed methods” design (Creswell, 2014). In this approach, the researcher first conducts quantitative research, analyzes the results, and then builds upon those findings through qualitative inquiry to gain deeper insights (Creswell, 2014, p. 44).

While surveys offered a foundational understanding of editorial patterns and submission experiences, they could not fully capture the emotional complexities such as joy, frustration, or disillusionment that were expressed by researchers and editors. Furthermore, the initial journal review of College Composition and Communication provided valuable quantitative data but did not reveal the broader issue of representation that this study ultimately aims to address. The qualitative component was necessary to explore these deeper, often overlooked dimensions of scholarly experience.

A total of 2,047 articles spanning 50 years were reviewed. Rather than analyzing the full span of CCC publications since 1950, this study strategically selected specific years to coincide with periods of significant African American educational and sociopolitical influence, including:

• 1956–1969: Civil Rights and Black Power Movements

• 1972–1998: Linguistic rights activism, including the Students’ Right to Their Own Language resolution, the Ann Arbor decision, and the Oakland Ebonics Resolution

• 2014–2023: The rise and influence of the Black Lives Matter movement

The selected years were: 1956–1959, 1960–1969, 1972–1978, 1980–1988, 1990–1998, 2000–2008, 2014–2019, and 2020–2023. This approach allowed for analysis of published issues alongside peak moments of Black activism, offering a more meaningful lens to evaluate the inclusion and evolution of Black discourse within the CCC journal. The analysis began in 1956 to allow time for scholarly responses to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision and the early momentum of the Civil Rights Movement to appear in publication.

While it may be plausible to attribute the omission of early Civil Rights discourse to unfamiliarity or the slow pace of academic publishing, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the consistent lack of engagement with subsequent movements—including linguistic justice and Black Lives Matter—as mere coincidence. Rather, the pattern suggests a systemic and intentional exclusion of Black scholarship, perspectives, and issues from mainstream disciplinary discourse.

To complete the content analysis, keyword search was used to locate articles that mentioned Black people. The keywords included: 

• African/afro American(s), 

• Black(s), 

• Negro(es), 

• minority/ies/ized, 

• urban, 

• disadvantaged, 

• underserved, 

• person(s)/people of color, 

• colored, 

• BIPOC, 

• poor

Articles referencing Black or African American people were analyzed to determine whether they primarily focused on the Black Experience. “Primarily” refers to research that centers Black individuals and their experiences, offering new insights into the growth, development, and epistemological contributions of Black experiences within writing studies.

I focused only on the mentioning of Black or African American people within the article, excluding the racial representation of the author unless it was readily identifiable or explicitly stated in the article. I could not determine whether a particular scholar writing about the Black Experience identified as Black or belonged to another racial group, nor would it have been appropriate to make such assumptions without explicit self-identification. Additionally, not every article that mentioned Black people or related issues was included in the analysis. In many cases, scholars cited the work of identified Black scholars in their references but made no further engagement with those scholars or their work within the body of the article. In some cases, scholars referenced the Black Experience as an illustrative example, rather than as a central focus. For instance, Hubrig and Rosario (2020), in their article on inclusion for dis/differently-abled individuals at conferences, note that “…a Black disabled person may feel unsafe in a heavily policed conference venue,” yet make no further mention or engagement with Black experiences throughout the article. Nonetheless, an emergent pattern revealed that articles with higher frequencies of relevant keywords were more likely to center Black experiences. Additional indicators included the frequent use of specific keywords, as well as analysis of the article’s title, abstract, and in some cases, explicit references to African American populations.

I designed a survey using Qualtrics to collect data from a diverse group of participants. To be eligible for the study, participants had to meet the following criteria: (1) be at least 18 years old, (2) have submitted to or been published in an NCTE journal: College Composition and Communication, College English, English Journal, Research in the Teaching of English, or Teaching English in the Two-Year College, and (3) currently reside in the United States.

I chose to focus on publication in NCTE journals because they are peer-reviewed and consistently produce current research on pedagogy and classroom instruction. Limiting the study to NCTE publications also helped maintain a manageable scope, given the wide range of subfields within writing studies such as writing program administration, writing across the curriculum, and professional and technical communication. The breadth of NCTE's journal offerings allowed for inclusion of scholars with diverse research interests, including those beyond composition and rhetoric, as many may have published in at least one NCTE journal over the course of their careers. Additionally, I limited participation to individuals currently residing in the United States, as international experiences introduce contextual differences that extend beyond the intended scope of this study.

Utilizing interviews allowed both researchers and editors in writing studies to share their personal experiences from distinct and valuable perspectives. I felt it was important not to limit the conversation to researchers’ experiences and interpretations of the submission process without also including the insights of editors, who could provide crucial context and offer their own interpretations of challenges within the process. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions that focused on editors’ roles, how they engage with researchers, and, importantly, what they perceived as the most challenging aspects of the article submission process for researchers, and the strategies they employed to help mitigate those challenges.

I reached out to editors from 6 of the 11 publications housed under NCTE and received responses from editors of College Composition and Communication, College English, English Journal, and Teaching English in the Two-Year College. The editors interviewed were either current or outgoing at the time of the study. I did not ask participants to disclose their gender or racial identity; however, based on the historical lack of Black editorial leadership across NCTE journals, it is unlikely that any would identify as Black. No further demographic information can be confirmed. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and included ten open-ended questions, covering topics such as how they became editors, their views on the most challenging aspects of submitting to their journal, and how they believe their journal is perceived within the broader writing studies community.

Researchers were invited to participate in interviews after completing the survey and providing consent. The survey yielded 22 responses: 4 participants identified as Black or African American, 11 identified as “other” (including mixed race and Asian), and 7 chose not to disclose their racial identity. These demographics presented both challenges and insights for the study. Initially, I considered limiting participation to Black scholars in writing studies; however, I anticipated recruitment difficulties given the field’s predominantly white composition. As a result, the study was opened to participants of all racial backgrounds.

Although the study aims to investigate processes affecting Black representation in writing studies, none of the Black participants opted into interviews. Consequently, I relied on the limited insights they shared in the survey and emphasized broader trends across all survey responses, integrating Black participants’ perspectives where applicable. This limitation also highlighted a critical issue: in the absence of sufficient direct data from Black scholars, the experiences of the dominant group of white scholars can sometimes serve as a proxy. As one interviewee noted, if white researchers face barriers in the article submission process, those same barriers likely affect Black scholars to an even greater extent.

I had to critically reflect on the reasons for the limited number of Black respondents and the lack of participation in interviews. While any explanation remains speculative, several possibilities were worth considering. One is the simple reality that there may be very few Black scholars in writing studies. Currently, there is no centralized data source that tracks how many individuals have earned degrees specifically in writing studies, making it difficult to assess representation accurately. Another possibility is that many Black scholars, after long struggles for recognition within the field, have found greater success and validation in adjacent disciplines. Additionally, some may have chosen not to participate due to concerns about potential backlash, especially given that this study directly critiques the field and its flagship journal. The fear of professional repercussions may discourage open engagement, even in anonymous research contexts.

Findings and Discussion

Journal Review Key Findings: Keywords

Of the 2,047 articles reviewed in this study, keyword usage varied significantly. I found that the more frequently certain keywords appeared, the more likely the article was to center Black experiences in writing studies. However, there were exceptions as some articles that used few or no explicit keywords still clearly focused on the Black Experience. For example, N. J. Townsend’s 1966 article “Teaching the Disadvantaged: Methods of Motivation” uses the word “Negro” only twice, yet the inclusion of Black students is central to the article’s focus. Similarly, Aaron Ford’s 1967 piece “Improving Reading and Writing Skills of Disadvantaged College Freshmen” uses “Negro” twelve times but frames the title around the term “disadvantaged,” suggesting an interchangeable use of terms, though their meanings shift depending on context.

This analysis was important not only to track the quantity of articles engaging with Black scholarship but also to examine how scholars use language to frame their work. Understanding keyword usage is essential, especially when attempting to locate research on specific populations, as it influences how articles are discovered and classified in academic databases.

OVERALL DATA PINPOINTS FEEDBACK AND SUPPORT

Analysis of the researcher survey data revealed that feedback and support were among the most frequently cited challenges in the publishing process. Respondents emphasized concerns related to the time between submitting a draft and receiving feedback, the difficulty of interpreting that feedback, and the effort required to revise accordingly. Additionally, many researchers pointed to a lack of institutional support and limited time as significant barriers, both of which made the process of publishing substantially more difficult.

While surveyed researchers acknowledged the importance of publishing, many expressed specific concerns with the submission process for NCTE journals. One respondent noted, “Their review process was so long (9–12 months) that, if my article wasn’t accepted, I would have lost a year or more of trying to get that article placed.” Others described feeling unsupported when their work focused on antiracist scholarship. For instance, a respondent who submitted to College Composition and Communication and College English in 2006–2007 shared, “The feedback I got was not supportive of the antiracist work I was trying to do, and it suggested that I was not capable of doing it, or that it wasn't worth pursuing.”

In addition to content-based concerns, several researchers struggled with the volume and clarity of feedback received. A respondent who submitted to Research in the Teaching of English (RTE) stated, “We received feedback from five reviewers…the reviewers all had different revision requests. Mapping these requests to and with one another was incredibly difficult, especially given the sheer volume of feedback…so we gave up on the revision and submitted elsewhere (non-NCTE journal).” These experiences highlight how both procedural delays and discouraging or conflicting feedback can act as significant barriers to publication.

Findings concluded that Black researchers often encounter barriers before the submission stage even begins. While the overall survey data emphasized the need for support and constructive feedback, responses from Black participants revealed distinct challenges rooted in earlier stages of the publication process specific to article development, initial draft submission, and identifying appropriate journals for their work. When asked about the specific obstacles they face, Black respondents cited unclear submission policies, insufficient guidance on article development, limited time, and a lack of institutional support. Notably, half of the Black participants indicated that they believed their race posed a challenge during the submission process. Both respondents who identified race as a barrier also identified as female, while the two who did not report race as a challenge identified as male.

In addition to the general concerns around feedback shared by all survey participants, a broader issue between authors' scholarly interests and reviewers' interpretive frameworks when the work falls outside normed paradigms was also presented. One participant elaborated, stating, “Journal reviewers need to reflect the full scope of the field. Lack of representative expertise at the intersection of Writing Studies and Black Studies makes for a very whitewashed publication.” Black respondents specifically noted that the feedback they received often included micro- and macroaggressions, making the submission process even more challenging, and white respondents also expressed frustration, reporting that reviewers did not appear to understand their research, particularly when it engaged with critical or nontraditional perspectives. 

The experiences of researchers across both the survey and interview phases revealed consistent concerns regarding the extended timeline of the publication process, particularly related to receiving and responding to feedback. While all researchers noted these delays, Black researchers emphasized an additional layer of difficulty stemming from a lack of institutional support when attempting to navigate the article submission process. This underscores a growing gap in preparedness between Black and white researchers when it comes to publishing in academic journals. Beyond the prolonged wait for feedback, participants reported minimal support from both their institutions and journal editors in interpreting and responding to reviewer comments. One participant recounted, “I mean, I think the most—yeah, the feedback part was just because there was no one. It took a long time…I remember that it took like 6 months for me to get back the thing…I just had to wait, and then I would email, and I didn’t get a lot of response from the editor” (Joshua, Interview, October 23, 2023). His experience highlights a multilayered issue of editorial silence coupled with a drawn-out process. Researcher Jazlyn further complicated the picture, stating, “So I am not supported. I've never been supported in publishing in my entire career…I've actively avoided it because I've watched people get crushed through the tenure process because of what happened to them during publication processes” (Jazlyn, Interview, October 20, 2023). Her account brings into focus the long-term professional risks that marginalized scholars may face, not only as graduate students seeking to strengthen their CVs, but also as junior faculty navigating the high stakes demands of tenure under structurally exclusionary conditions.

EDITORS ON FEEDBACK AND SUPPORT

When asked to identify the most challenging aspects of the article submission process for scholars, editors highlighted two primary concerns: (1) preparing a submission that meets the standards of the journal, particularly for early-career scholars or faculty, and (2) navigating and synthesizing feedback from multiple reviewers, especially when their comments conflict. While editors acknowledged the complexity of managing conflicting reviews, researchers expressed deeper frustrations—not only with understanding the feedback itself but also with the emotional toll it takes, often describing feelings of confusion and hopelessness in deciding how to proceed. For Black researchers in particular, the challenges begin even earlier in the process. Their responses revealed struggles with drafting and developing articles and interpreting feedback that sometimes felt dismissive or even offensive. These difficulties were compounded by a lack of guidance and support. The editor of Teaching English in the Two-Year College (TETYC) recognized the subjective nature of reviewer feedback, stating, “It doesn't mean the reviews are always right. And I mean, you can get 3 reviews and 2 of them are telling you to do something you're dead set against, but then don't do it” (TETYC Editor, Interview, October 13, 2023). This insight underscores the need for scholars to be equipped not only with writing and revision skills but also with the confidence and institutional backing to make informed decisions about how to engage with feedback critically.

The TETYC editor’s suggestion to take only the feedback that you want and to leave the rest seems like an option that researchers don’t seem to think they have—no matter their race. When pressed further on this concept of having to defer to the reviewer’s comments or risk not being published, the editor stated that the power dynamic between author and reviewer is often overstated, and that authors have more agency in the revision process than they might believe. However, they acknowledged that this perception is deeply rooted in academic culture, where the pressure to publish can make pushing back on reviewer comments feel professionally risky, especially for early-career scholars or those from underrepresented backgrounds.

In the case of College English, rejections often stem from a mismatch between the submitted article and the journal’s expectations regarding formatting, scope, and audience. While this challenge could affect any scholar unfamiliar with the journal, it may be particularly detrimental for those without access to mentorship or institutional guidance. For Black scholars, who, according to survey data, often cited “confusing policies and procedures” as a barrier to submission—this lack of clarity can result in rejections that feel not only discouraging but isolating. Still, the editor emphasized that rejections are not issued without supportive feedback. Instead, the editorial team makes an effort to redirect authors by suggesting other journals where the work might be a better fit and offering specific revision suggestions. As the editor explained, “I think it always makes me feel better to say, I think this work…would be better suited for Journal X, Y, or Z. And…if you're going to submit…you might consider… including these scholars…extending your methods section…” (College English Editor, Interview, October 26, 2023). This approach reflects an awareness of how damaging rejections can be to a scholar’s mental and professional wellbeing and shows an effort to mitigate those effects through constructive redirection.

But sometimes, no matter the care or consideration an editor takes, acknowledging the system and how it functions to exclude is necessary to dismantle it. This system was described by the editor for CCC who plainly states that the review system is faulty no matter their best efforts:

I think that the journal review system is broken. That's what I'll say, first of all, for most of the flagship journals. At journals like the Cs, really, the goal is rejection. It's not my goal, but the goal of flagship journals that get overwhelming numbers of publications. The goal has always been for it to be a gate. And I was trying to figure out how to get in a system like this and make it less of a gate. And it's a struggle and it's so much easier to just do it the way it's always been done.” (CCC editor, Interview, Oct. 2023)

This candid reflection underscores the often-unspoken reality of academic publishing: that selectivity is used not only as a measure of quality but as a mechanism of exclusion. The goal is not always to cultivate scholarship but to filter it, which is an approach that disproportionately impacts emerging scholars and those whose work challenges conventional norms. Even editors who wish to disrupt these norms find themselves constrained by institutional expectations and traditions, making meaningful change difficult.

STRUGGLES FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM

When asked if they felt that journals were sites of racial practices, many editors reflected on their roles as gatekeepers of knowledge with significant influence operating in a system that historically privileges and has privileged white voices over other voices in the field. That can be a hard realization but an important one to consider as editor of TETYC reflects:

I'm part of NCTE. I produce that and I'm disciplining knowledge and what I produce for TETYC is the written knowledge of two-year college English. And if I'm leaving out disabled voices, black voices, Latinx voices, LGBTQ voices, which are freaking completely absent. You know, there might be queer authors, but we're not talking about queer issues or queer students, you know, so yeah, absolutely. It can totally be an organ for reproducing those things. And it's hard for it not to be based on who has the privilege to write those things. (TETYC editor, Interview, Oct. 2023)

There is an acknowledgement that in TETYC that voices are absent for reasons unknown but could be the result of unconscious bias. But there exists a system that even the editor of College English understands. The editor’s self-awareness within editorial leadership that recognizes not only the structural barriers faced by scholars of color, but also the personal complicity of individuals working within those structures. The editor’s acknowledgment that they have themselves been “an instrument of white supremacy” illustrates the depth of reflection required to begin dismantling these legacies and working toward a broader need for editors and gatekeepers to examine their roles in sustaining or challenging dominant epistemologies.

Separate from the other journals, CCC seems to be operating in more than one system that restricts its success, namely, still relying on print publications:

The problem is, of course, we have 192 pages every issue. And that's not a lot. That’s five to seven articles. If I say to you today, I’m publishing your piece, it's not coming out until next year. That's because it’s print. It’s more expensive and it takes longer. And because we are limited, 192 pages. If I publish 193, the next issue is 191. Print publication limits the amount of scholarship that can circulate in our discipline and our community in a way that is detrimental for all of us. (CCC editor, Interview, Oct. 2023)

The need to continue printing seems to also be tied to the issue of gatekeeping which the editor connects to white liberalism. They describe the impact of white liberalism, especially in the 1960s and 70s when communities of color were driving major equity and justice movements. Meanwhile, white scholars largely avoided engaging directly with those issues. When they did address them, it was often through coded or indirect language, using terms like “errors and expectations.” At the same time, scholars within their own field were pushing back, as seen in the Students’ Right to Their Own Language statement. But those efforts were blocked from publication in flagship journals because the gatekeepers, often white liberal editors, believed those perspectives were wrong, even if they wouldn’t say so openly. These editors, often seen as polite and progressive, maintained control over what appeared in their journals and ensured dissenting voices were silenced, regardless of the social upheaval happening outside academia (CCC editor, Interview, Oct. 2023).

Discussion

In response to the inequities present in the article submission process, many editors shared that their solution has been to diversify their reviewer pools. Others reported that they often address these concerns by personally inviting scholars to contribute to special issues. While these efforts may appear commendable, they ultimately fall short of addressing the systemic barriers within the submission and review process itself. Inviting scholars to bypass the standard submission process through special issues does not result in structural reform; it creates temporary avenues for inclusion that may not exist when no special issue aligns with a scholar’s cultural or disciplinary expertise. Relying on special issues to feature research on underrepresented communities risks marginalizing the work rather than integrating it into the journal’s ongoing scholarly conversation. As Young (1990) notes in her theory of the distributive paradigm, justice must include equitable access to not only wealth and material resources, but also to structural opportunities and institutional platforms. In this context, equitable representation in academic publishing cannot rely on exceptions to the norm; it must become embedded within the standard practices of journals year-round.

Ultimately, a multi-pronged approach is necessary to address the concerns of scholars and the preservation of knowledge sharing in academic journals; one that revises not only submission protocols but also reviewer guidelines and editorial responsibilities, ensuring a more just and equitable publishing system. While many theorists focus primarily on the distributive aspect of justice, Young critiques this narrow view, arguing that it assumes a singular model for all justice analyses: situations where individuals divide a fixed stock of goods and compare their shares…including rights, opportunities, power, and self-respect  (Young, 1990, p. 16, 18). However, there can be no one-size-fits-all solution, as different groups face distinct challenges within the article submission process. Simply increasing access to one element of inequality for one group does not generate a ripple effect that grants access to all other groups or issues, especially when the exclusionary system itself remains intact. Young (1990) further contends that focusing exclusively on the distribution of material resources unduly limits the scope of justice by failing to critically evaluate social structures and institutional contexts (p. 20). Applying this critique to academic publishing, a narrow focus on distributive justice within submission processes overlooks the systemic practices that uphold exclusion. Meaningful reform requires recognizing appropriate divisions of labor, respecting cultural practices, and including marginalized scholars in decision-making roles. Empowering scholars through such inclusion could help transform the process by addressing how reviewer feedback is managed before reaching authors. 

The harm inflicted on researchers who face rejection or even multiple rounds of revision and resubmission underscores the urgent need for journals and editors to rebuild trust in the submission process. As highlighted by the editor of College Composition and Communication, restoring researchers’ faith in the value of engaging with this process is crucial. Walton, Moore, and Jones (2019) offer a hopeful perspective through their discussion of restorative justice, which “puts social harmony at the center of justice concerns” (p. 44). Restorative justice involves collective efforts to define what justice looks like in response to harm, uplifting all parties involved through principles of care and accountability. This approach resonates with James Berlin’s revisionary history methods, which call for a broader examination of what defines the field, what has been excluded, and why, opening the door for meaningful structural change. Given the ways that submission and review procedures currently cause harm, editors must take active steps to dismantle discriminatory and oppressive practices that have become normalized within academic publishing.

Historically, academic journals have been sites of racialized practices (Clary-Lemon, 2009). However, just as the field of rhetoric has evolved over time, so too must the processes and procedures for journal submissions. This evolution includes rethinking the language used to promote journals, how calls for papers are constructed, and the manner in which feedback is provided to researchers. Many researchers interviewed expressed feeling personally misunderstood and believed that reviewers, despite lacking comprehension of their work, were still expected to critique it. Inoue (2019) and Young (2009) emphasize the need to be aware of how language can function as a weapon in the submission and review process, often privileging certain dialects or modes of expression over others, like Black English or African American English.

To address these issues, editors must receive mentorship that prepares them to effectively engage with diverse researchers and topics, as well as to guide reviewers who may require additional support in providing appropriate feedback. Additionally, training for reviewers is essential to foster constructive, forward-thinking critiques. Because feedback is the most critical aspect of the publication process for researchers, failing to improve its quality risks perpetuating a cycle of trauma, where researchers who receive negative feedback may, in turn, replicate those harmful practices if they become reviewers themselves.

The solution to the lack of inclusion of minority voices in academic journals is not straightforward; rather, it requires a complex and nuanced assemblage of approaches tailored to different cultures, classes, ethnicities, and abilities. Walton, Moore, and Jones (2019) and Young (1990) offer extensive discussions on the concept of justice in relation to multiple forms of oppression. Although Young’s analysis primarily addresses broad economic injustices, these frameworks are applicable to the field of writing and rhetoric, specifically within the journal submission process if we view journals as systems that both reflect and respond to oppression.

In seeking solutions, the ability to identify the intersecting elements of discrimination and oppression is crucial. Young’s work reminds us that multiple, layered strategies are necessary to create a more equitable and inclusive journal submission experience for editors, peer reviewers, and researchers alike. This approach goes beyond simply asserting that marginalized researchers are welcome to submit, especially when no explicit barriers are identified. Instead, it demands a critical evaluation and systemic transformation of the submission process to eliminate both perceived and real obstacles such as bias or editorial preferences, underrepresentation in previous publications, ineffective diversity marketing by journals, and harmful peer review experiences that continue to hinder inclusion.

Conclusion

Main Considerations for the Study:

1. Of the 2,047 articles reviewed in College Composition and Communication, only 4.46% (95 articles) centered on the Black Experience. This category includes research focused on Black people’s experiences and contributions to the growth, development, and epistemological advancements within Writing Studies.

2. According to the editor of College Composition and Communication, one possible reason for the underrepresentation of Black scholarship is a historical pattern of “white liberalism,” where past editors and scholars exercised gatekeeping by weaponizing the submission process. This has caused harm to many researchers.

3. The keywords used to identify articles about the Black Experience vary widely and lack consistency, making it difficult for scholars and readers to locate such research easily. Feedback and institutional support emerged as consistent stressors in the submission process. Researchers reported anxiety due to conflicting or overwhelming feedback from reviewers and lengthy turnaround times. Additionally, lack of institutional support to allocate time for article development and insufficient editorial mediation complicate navigating reviewer feedback.

4. Black scholars specifically identified a lack of access to mentorship and institutional resources, especially during the critical stages of article development and submission.

5. Rejections or revise-and-resubmit decisions negatively affect researchers, particularly scholars of color, influencing whether they continue submitting to traditional journals or seek alternative venues with more efficient processes.

6. Editors see the greatest challenges as helping early scholars prepare publishable articles and navigate reviewer feedback. They emphasize that researchers should understand journal-specific expectations and view feedback as a dialogic negotiation, not an absolute mandate.

7. Editors express the hope of building more diverse reviewer pools and editorial boards to better represent the field’s diversity, though this remains a work in progress.

8. Many editors are committed to mentoring researchers and providing tailored feedback, including guiding them toward appropriate journals and reviewers.

9. Editors acknowledge their powerful role as gatekeepers and are taking intentional steps to amplify absent voices. This includes organizing special issues, direct outreach to scholars, and establishing mentorship programs to support scholars from draft through publication.

10. Editors face difficulties in securing reviewers, especially those with expertise in specialized or diverse subject areas.

11. Printing journals impose constraints on growth, article length, and publication timelines, slowing the dissemination of knowledge.

    References

    Adams, L. & Miller, A. (2022). Mechanisms of mental-health disparities among minoritized groups: How well are the top journals in clinical psychology representing this work?” Clinical Psychological Science, 10(3), 387–416, https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026211026979.

    Bowell, T. (2011). Feminist standpoint theory. In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (James Fieser & Bradley Dowden, editors). 

    Burrows, C. (2016). Writing while Black: The Black tax on African American graduate writers. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 14(1). https://www.praxisuwc.com/burrows-141.

    Clary-Lemon, J. (2009). The racialization of composition studies: Scholarly rhetoric of race since 1990. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W1–W17. http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarlyjournals/racialization-composition-studiesscholarly/docview/220715894/se-2.

    Coffey, D. (2006). “A discipline’s composition: A citation analysis of composition studies.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(2), 155–165.

    Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (Fourth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Ford, N. A. (1967). Improving reading and writing skills of disadvantaged college freshmen. College Composition and Communication, 18(2), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/354292

    Gilyard, K., & Banks, A. J. (2018). On African-American rhetoric (First edition). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315108636

    Hewitt, R. D. (2024). Where the Black people at: An examination of the representation of Black scholarship in composition and rhetoric. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

    McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1–11.

    Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 257–277. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Townsend, N. J. (1966). Teaching the disadvantaged: Methods of motivation. College Composition and Communication, 17(1), 37–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/354060

    Tunison, S. (2023). Content analysis. In Varieties of qualitative research methods, 85–90. Springer Texts in Education. 

    Walton, R., Moore, K., & Jones, N. (2019). Technical communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198748

    Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Print.