The article highlights a set of specific solutions for international journals - “The Margin Lever”. The proposed solutions relate to changes in publishing policies and methods of reviewing texts that may contribute to overcoming the hegemony of scientists coming from the richest, top-rated, perfectly adapted universities. These universities are usually located in the richest and most developed countries - we call them the core, or the center of the scholarly world. The margin lever is designed, not to make competition with them equitable, but rather to contribute to the development of democratic networks, and support global and local efforts within committed social research.
AbriszewskiK. (2016a). Humanistyka półperyferii [humanities of the semi-periphery]. In AbriszewskiK.KolaA. F.KowalewskiJ. (Eds.), Humanistyka (pół)peryferii [humanities of the (semi)periphery] (pp. 99–138). Instytut Historii i Stosunków Międzynarodowych Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego w Olsztynie.
2.
AbriszewskiK.KolaA. F.KowalewskiJ. (2016). Humanistyka (pół)peryferii [humanities of the (semi)periphery]. Instytut Historii i Stosunków Międzynarodowych Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego w Olsztynie.
3.
AbriszewskiK. (2016b). Nauka w walizce [suitcase science]. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, 1(207), 87–111.
4.
AltbachP. G.De WitH. (2015). Internatinalization and global tension: Lessons From history. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314564734
BellA. (2017). Working from where we are: A response from aotearoa New Zealand. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1249066
8.
BiestaG. (2012). Knowledge/democracy: Notes on the political economy of academic publishing. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.696705
9.
ChutorańskiM. (2015). Uniwersytet to bardzo wiele różnych rzeczy… [University is a Lot of Different Things ...]. Pedagogika Szkoły Wyższej, 1, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.18276/psw.2015.1-03
10.
ChutorańskiM.SzwabowskiO. (2018). Parametryzacja, humanistyka i los mieszkańców Rapa Nui [parametrization, The humanities and The fate of people from Rapa Nui]. Rocznik Lubuski, 44(2), 145–163.
11.
ConnellR. (2007). Southern theory. The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Polity Press.
CzyżniewskiM. (2018, June 23). UMK: Reforma Gowina to szansa dla najlepszych uczelni [UMK: The Gowin reform is an opportunity for the best universities]. Wyborcza.pl, 23 June. Accessed 12 may 2020. https://torun.wyborcza.pl/torun/7,48723,23580120,umk-reforma-gowina-to-szansa-dla-najlepszych-uczelni.html.
de RobertisC. (2017). A symphony of voices. In de RobertisC. (Ed.), Radical hope. Letters of love and dissent in dangerous times (pp. epub)). Vintage.
16.
DunnE. (2004). Privatizing Poland: Baby food, Big business, and the remaking of labor. Cornell University Press.
17.
FeatherstoneM. (2020). Problematizing the global: An Introduction to global culture revisited. Theory, Culture & Society, 37(7–8), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276420957715
18.
FitzgeraldS. R.ZhehanJ. (2020). Higher education publication and institutional and national diversity. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 953–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1699031
19.
Guzmán-ValenzuelaC.QueupilbJ. P.Ríos-JaraH. (2021). Global and peripheral identities in the production of knowledge on higher education reforms: The latin American case. Higher Education Policy, 34, 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00134-4
20.
HardyJ. (2009). Poland's New capitalism. Pluto Press.
21.
HarzingA.-W.MetzI. (2013). Practicing what We preach. Management International Review, 53(2), 169–187.
22.
JuntrasookA.BurfordJ. (2017). Animating southern theory in the context of Thai higher education: A response from Thailand. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1249069
KwiekM. (2015). Uniwersytet w dobie przemian. Instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji [university in the Age of change. Institutions and academic staff in the conditions of growing competition]. PWN.
25.
KwiekM. (2017). A generational divide in the academic profession: A mixed quantitative and qualitative approach to the Polish case. European Educational Research Journal, 16(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116689684
26.
LatourB. (1993). Pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press. Translation by A. Sheridan and J. Law. (Original work published 1984).
27.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Sage.
28.
LawJ. (2004). After method. Mess in social science research. Routledge.
29.
LawJ.MolA. (2002). Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices. Duke University Press.
30.
LeeJ. J.Maldonado-MaldonadoA. (2018). Not enough diverse academic research is being published. University World News 14 September 2018 Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story = 20180913095151857 (universityworldnews.com).
31.
LilyA. E. A. (2020). Academic centrachy: A political system of governing education and technology. Journal of Academic Ethic. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09374-1
MatildaH.EmmiK.AnuK.TomK.RichardS.KatherineC. (2020). Diversity in addiction publishing. International Journal of Drug Policy, 82, 102788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102788
35.
MedinaL. R. (2014). Centers and peripheries in knowledge production. Routledge.
36.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
37.
Mosbah-NatansonS.GingrasY. (2013). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62(5), 626–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113498866
38.
MurphyJ.ZhuJ. (2012). Neo-colonialism in the academy? Anglo-American domination in management journals. Organization, 19(6), 915–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412453097
39.
MwangiC. A. G.LatafatS.HammondS.KommersS.ThomaH. S.BergerJ.Blanco-RamirezG. (2018). Criticality in international higher education research: A critical discourse analysis of higher education journals. Higher Education, 76, 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0259-9
40.
NowakA. W. (2016). Tajemnicze zniknięcie drugiego Świat,A…. O trudnym losie półperyferii [mysterious disappearance of the second worl,D…. On the difficult fate of the semi-periphery]. In ZaryckiT. (Ed.), Polska jako peryferie [Poland as the periphery] (pp. 86–104). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
41.
OmoniyiT. (2010). Writing in English(es). In KirkpatrickA. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world englishes (pp. 471–489). Routledge.
RatajczakJ. (2020). Języczeni. Co język robi naszej głowie [languageholding. What the language does your head]. Karakter.
44.
RocheS.FlynnC. (2020). Geographical inequity in social work research: A snapshot of research publications from the global south. International Social Work, 63(3), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1336573
45.
RowlandsJ.WrightS. (2020). The role of bibliometric research assessment in a global order of epistemic injustice: A case study of humanities research in Denmark. Critical Studies in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1792523
46.
SowaJ. (2011). Fantomowe ciało króla [King's Phantom body]. Universitas.
47.
SpohrerK.StahlG.Bowers-BrownT. (2018). Constituting neoliberal subjects? “Aspiration” as technology of government in UK policy discourse. Journal of Education Policy, 33(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1336573
48.
StankiewiczŁ. (2019). Wizje uniwersytetu w polskiej debacie publicznej 2007-2010 [visions of the university in the Polish public debate 2007-2010]. Impuls.
TienariJ. (2019). One flew over the duck pond: Autoethnography, academic, identity, and language. Management Learning, 50(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507619875887
53.
TietzeS.DickP. (2013). The victorious English language: Hegemonic practice in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612444316
54.
TightM. (2018). Higher education journals: Their characteristic and contribution. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1389858
55.
TomaselliK. G. (2019). Humanities, citations and currency: Hierarchies of value and enabled recolonisation. Critical Arts, 33(3), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2019.1690534
56.
TraharS.JuntrasookA.BurfordJ.von KotzeA.WildemeerschD. (2019). Hovering on the periphery? ‘decolonising’ writing for academic journals. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1545817
57.
WallersteinI. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the european world economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.
58.
WangJ.ZhangX. (2020). The geopolitics of knowledge circulation: The situated agency of mimicking in/beyond China. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 61(6), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2020.1773890
59.
WarrenS.StarnawskiM.TsatsaroniA.VogopoulouA.ZgagaP. (2021). How does research performativity and selectivity impact on the non-core regions of Europe? The case for a new research agenda. Higher Education, 81, 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00559-6
60.
WoldegiyorgisA. A.ProctorD.de WitH. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762804
