One field, two realities: a computational study of topic divergence and academic capital in Latin American and international research

Communication research aspires to global relevance, yet its knowledge production remains stratified between a dominant Core and a marginalized Periphery. Using computational topic modeling on 114,211 articles from Latin American and Core international journals (2003–2023), this study maps the epistemic rift between these regions. Results reveal pronounced divergences in focus: Core scholarship concentrates on “Digital Media and Technology” (13.7% vs. 3.1%), while Latin American research prioritizes “Society and Identity” (36.9% vs. 24.4%), reflecting a historical commitment to social praxis and contextual responsiveness. This responsiveness manifests as high temporal volatility in Latin American topics, contrasting with the stability of Core agendas. However, this epistemic autonomy incurs a structural cost: Latin American origin is the strongest negative predictor of academic capital (β = -0.708), indicating that the field’s definitions of excellence systematically devalue regional specificity. While cross-region cooperation offers partial mitigation (β = 0.462), the findings highlight a strategic paradox where maintaining local relevance results in global invisibility, suggesting that bridging this gap requires not only institutional repair but a fundamental shift in the citation cultures that govern disciplinary recognition.