ArticleSocial studies of science2026
Troubling the Canon: Language, Geography, and the Politics of STS Publishing in Five Decades of Journal Publications.
Article in Social studies of science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STS is now a global endeavour, with journals, scholars, and associations in a wide range of regions, languages, and transnational networks of knowledge. Building on recent debates about decolonizing research, we contribute to debates about epistemic injustice and asymmetries in the discipline by analysing a large sample of articles in 17 STS journals, published between 1976 and 2023. Our goal is to understand the multiplicity of factors that shape processes that lead to hegemony and canonization. Drawing on a database of 12,045 articles, we describe the language of publication and geography of authorship, in addition to the language policy of the journals and location of their editorial offices. We then analyse the 350 most cited articles (ca. 3%) in our sample and focus our analysis on the 40 most cited publications, looking at the processes of canon-formation in the discipline. We argue that while STS has always emphasized the situatedness of knowledge and promoted epistemic pluralism, there is still significant work to be done to analyse how asymmetries in publishing and circulation of knowledge take place. To address epistemic injustice, more needs to be done to undo the processes through which canon formation takes place, moving the field further away from the Euro-American networks of knowledge and power in which it is still primarily embedded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.