• Tadqiqotning ilmiy yangiligi va dolzarbligi yetarli darajada bo‘lmasligi.
• Tadqiqot metodologiyasida zaiflik (namuna hajmi kichik, statistik tahlil noto‘g‘ri, metodlar mos emas).
• Natijalar ishonchliligi va takrorlanish imkoniyati past bo‘lishi.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion. You've hit on some of the most critical points in academic publishing.

I'm particularly interested in your comment on **research methodology and the reliability of results**. These are indeed major challenges for many of us.

Could you share some of the strategies or practical steps you've found most effective in strengthening methodology and ensuring the repeatability of your own research?

This kind of shared experience is incredibly helpful.

You’ve captured many of the technical and structural barriers well. But let me expand this conversation with a more ecological and identity-oriented lens — especially relevant in mathematics education, where epistemological tensions, positionalities, and institutional inequities shape publishing in profound ways.

Beyond the Obvious: Additional Barriers in Mathematics Education Publishing

1. Epistemological Misalignment

In mathematics education, journals often straddle two worlds: mathematical rigor and educational theory/praxis. Authors from pure mathematics backgrounds may struggle to frame their work within sociocultural or critical theoretical frameworks expected by education journals. Conversely, education researchers may be critiqued for “lack of mathematical depth.” This epistemological tension creates a no-man’s-land that silences valuable interdisciplinary work.

How I overcame it: I learned to explicitly name and justify my theoretical stance early in the manuscript — and chose journals whose editorial boards reflected pluralistic epistemologies.

2. Positionality and Voice Suppression

Early-career researchers, scholars from the Global South, or those working in under-resourced institutions often face implicit bias in review. Their methodological choices (e.g., qualitative case studies in local contexts) may be dismissed as “not generalizable” — code for “not Western or quantitative enough.”

Strategy: I now co-author with senior scholars when appropriate, but also intentionally submit to journals with explicit equity missions (e.g., Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, Mathematics Education Research Journal). I also write “positionality statements” to preempt misinterpretation.

3. Time Poverty and Institutional Pressures

The “publish or perish” culture hits hardest those with heavy teaching loads, caregiving responsibilities, or administrative duties — disproportionately affecting women and minoritized scholars. Writing a high-quality manuscript in mathematics education often requires deep reflection, iterative data analysis, and theoretical grounding — all time-intensive.

Tactic: I block “writing retreats” — even half-days — and treat them as non-negotiable. I also collaborate to distribute labor: one person drafts, another refines theory, another handles formatting/references.

4. The “Gatekeeping” Effect of Reviewer Subjectivity

Peer review is not neutral. Reviewers may reject work because it challenges dominant paradigms (e.g., critiquing standardized testing, advocating for ethnomathematics, or centering student voice over curriculum alignment). In mathematics education, where policy and power are deeply entangled, this is especially acute.

Response: I now include a “Reviewer Response Memo” even before submission — anticipating critiques and preemptively addressing them in the cover letter or manuscript. I also cite recent, paradigm-challenging work to legitimize my approach.

5. Language and Linguistic Capital

For non-native English speakers — a huge portion of our global mathematics education community — the expectation to write in “academic native-level English” is a massive barrier. Grammar is policed more harshly than conceptual contribution.

Solution: I use professional editing services (some journals offer fee waivers), collaborate with fluent writers, and submit to journals that explicitly support multilingual scholars. I also advocate for journals to adopt “English as a Lingua Franca” policies.

6. Lack of Mentorship in Scholarly Writing

Many graduate programs in mathematics education focus on research design and data analysis — but not on how to write for publication. The genre of a journal article — its rhetorical moves, citation politics, framing of “contribution” — is rarely taught explicitly.

What helped me: I analyzed 10 articles from my target journal before writing. I mapped their structure, argument flow, and how they cited foundational vs. recent work. I also joined writing groups — accountability is everything.

A Final Thought: Reframing “Barriers” as Systemic Design Flaws

Many of these “barriers” are not individual shortcomings — they are systemic features of an academic publishing model that privileges speed, homogeneity, and Western neoliberal ideals of “productivity.” As a community, we must not only navigate these barriers but actively work to dismantle them.

Advocate for transparent review processes. Support diamond open-access journals. Mentor junior scholars in writing as scholarly practice. Celebrate “slow scholarship” and context-rich studies.

Your original list is excellent — methodological rigor, novelty, and alignment matter. But in mathematics education, we must also confront whose knowledge counts, whose voice is heard, and what timelines are humanly possible. Publishing isn’t just about getting past reviewers — it’s about sustaining the integrity of our work and our selves in an often dehumanizing system.