Abstract
Efforts to make science more diverse, inclusive, and socially responsive have intensi-fied across scholarly and policy arenas. Yet the infrastructures that govern how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and evaluated continue to privilege a narrow subset of the global research system, shaping whose voices are heard and whose work attains legitimacy. Commercial indexes, high-impact journals, and citation-based indicators act as gatekeepers that unevenly distribute visibility, authority, and epistemic resources.

Against this backdrop, this dissertation examines how structural asymmetries in schol-arly knowledge production can be understood through the lens of epistemic injustice, and how bibliometric methods and research infrastructures both reproduce and can help mit-igate these injustices. Conceptually, it proposes an open taxonomy of epistemic injustices in science that traces how harms arise across different stages of the research process and reflects on the limits of individual-level interventions. Empirically, it uses bibliometric methods to analyze two interconnected dimensions: (i) dissemination-stage injustices linked to the gatekeeping role of mainstream indexes, and (ii) uptake-stage injustices re-flected in citation and recognition patterns. It also considers the partial remedial potential of open and regional bibliographic infrastructures. Africa serves as the principal empirical setting for examining how global hierarchies of visibility, authority, and circulation are configured and contested.

The findings show that epistemic injustices in science are structurally embedded rather than incidental. Biases in representation, recognition, and access are produced and rein-forced through the infrastructures and evaluative practices that regulate how knowledge moves through the scientific system. This perspective underscores the need to understand databases and citation practices not as neutral intermediaries but as active sites where epistemic authority is constructed and contested. The dissertation carries implications for bibliometric practice, research evaluation, and scholarly communication. It highlights the epistemic and political nature of database se-lection and data provenance, advocating for methodological pluralism and greater con-ceptual reflexivity in scientometrics. For evaluation, it cautions against exclusive reliance on commercial databases—especially when assessing underrepresented regions—and ar-gues for context-sensitive, multifaceted approaches aligned with epistemic justice princi-ples. For scholarly communication, it emphasizes the importance of supporting regional publishing ecosystems and recognizing diverse quality models, formats, and linguistic practices as essential to building a more inclusive and globally representative scientific system.

Thesis
Access the full-text of the dissertation here