Intersectionality, aging, and invisibility: a global review of black women’s experiences in academic research

Intersectionality, aging, and invisibility: a global review of black women’s experiences in academic research | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Intersectionality, aging, and invisibility: a global review of black women’s experiences in academic research Larissa Oliveira Nascimento, Letticia de Araújo Moura, Thiago Medeiros da Costa Daniele, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7679011/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global academic production on intersectionality, race, and gender, with a specific focus on the social exclusion and systemic discrimination faced by Black women. Using data from Scopus and Web of Science, 324 publications from 2011 to 2025 were analyzed, covering diverse disciplines such as sociology, gender studies, public health, and psychology. The analysis identified leading authors, institutions, journals, collaboration networks, and thematic trends, revealing the dominance of Western countries—particularly the United States—in shaping the field. Key thematic clusters included sexism, discrimination, environmental racism, and health disparities, alongside an increasing engagement with intersectionality as a critical analytical framework. Despite the observed growth, the results expose persistent epistemic asymmetries, with limited representation of scholars from the Global South, including regions with significant Black populations. This underrepresentation reflects broader structures of epistemological risk and the coloniality of knowledge, calling for inclusive research policies and collaborative practices that center marginalized voices. The study contributes not only to academic mapping but also offers policy-oriented recommendations to promote equity in knowledge production, including targeted funding for intersectional research and integration of intersectionality into evaluation metrics. By employing R and the Bibliometrix package, this research positions bibliometric tools as both analytical and advocacy instruments, showing the need for more diverse, decolonial, and interdisciplinary approaches to intersectionality in global scholarship. Humanities/Health humanities Humanities/Literature Social science/Sociology intersectionality bibliometric analysis race gender social exclusion Black women collaboration networks Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction The debate on intersectionality has long been approached in complex and multidimensional ways (Crenshaw, 1989 ; Collins, 2015 ; Choi et al. 2025 ). However, the ways in which intersectionality affects institutions and is represented within global academic research remain less clearly articulated. Persistent regional and global disparities illustrate that countries with large Black populations often continue to face significant structural barriers, including limited resources and inadequate conditions for addressing systemic exclusion (Ribeiro, 2018 ; Kilomba, 2016 ). This reinforces the need to interrogate both the epistemic exclusions that shape the production of knowledge and the material conditions that perpetuate inequities within the academic system. The engagement with intersectionality reflects long-standing critiques of how systems of race, gender, and class operate in interdependent ways to structure inequality in society (Davis, 1981 ). These critiques also emphasize how mainstream feminist discourse has often neglected the voices and experiences of Black and marginalized women (hooks, 1984). More recently, intersectionality has been advanced as a critical social theory that explains how power functions simultaneously across multiple domains and institutions (Collins, 2019 ). Although the concept of intersectionality has been widely examined in feminist and critical race studies, few studies have systematically mapped the scientific literature through a bibliometric lens, particularly focusing on the global exclusion of Black women. Together, these perspectives pointed the importance of mapping how intersectionality has been addressed in the academic literature, as such analyses make it possible to uncover dominant trends while also exposing persistent silences and disparities in global knowledge production. Thus, the aim of this study is not only to relate how Black women experience social and academic marginalization but also to emphasize how research conducted by Black scholars remains underrepresented, whether in terms of partnerships, visibility, or structural inequalities more broadly. (Crenshaw, 1989 ; Collins, 2015 ; Gonzalez, 1983 ). Despite the growing academic interest in intersectionality as a framework for analyzing race, gender, and social inequality, there is still a lack of bibliometric research systematically examining the dynamics of this field. While many studies have explored the theoretical and applied dimensions of intersectionality, few have provided a structured mapping of global research trends, key contributors, and intellectual structures. Bibliometric analysis offers a robust approach to uncover patterns in scientific production, identify influential authors, institutions, and journals, and trace the evolution of thematic clusters. Considering the increasing academic relevance of intersectionality, particularly in discussions of racism and gender discrimination, this study address to map and analyze global scientific production on the intersectionality of race and gender, with a specific focus on the social exclusion and discrimination faced by Black women. Using bibliometric techniques, the review identifies publication trends, leading contributors, and thematic developments from 2011 to 2025. Significance of the study A comprehensive review of the literature on intersectionality, race, and gender reveals a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches; however, there is still a lack of bibliometric studies that systematically analyze research trends, collaboration networks, and intellectual structures in this field specially to understand the central discussion onf this topic. The use of bibliometric tools, such as the R Bibliometrix package, makes it possible to generate quantitative data into publication outputs, citation patterns, and authorship networks, while also identifying thematic clusters and emerging topics within intersectionality research. Although intersectionality has been extensively discussed in disciplines such as sociology, psychology, law, and gender studies, a significant gap remains in the literature regarding the systematic mapping of how the concept has been applied, particularly in studies focusing on racism, sexism, and the social exclusion of Black women across different academic domains and cultural contexts. Bibliometric analysis allows for the mapping of research, identifying key scholars, leading institutions, and influential countries and journals. It also uncovers collaboration networks and thematic clusters that shape the discourse on intersectionality, racism, and gender. By analyzing citation patterns and collaboration maps, researchers can gain a clearer understanding of the theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches that structure this field. Taken together, these analyses will help guide future research directions on intersectionality, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of how race, gender, and social exclusion intersect to shape lived experiences in diverse contexts. This study also aims to expose potential disparities in the visibility and recognition of Black researchers, their institutions, and their countries within this field. Research Questions RQ 1 : What are the global publication trends on intersectionality, racism, and gender in scientific literature from 2011 to 2025? RQ 2 : Which countries and institutions lead research on the social exclusion of Black women, and how do their contributions shape the field? RQ 3 : What do citation and co-authorship networks reveal about the intellectual and collaborative structure of research on intersectionality? RQ 4 : What are the most relevant keywords and thematic clusters, and which emerging areas (e.g., environmental racism, health disparities) remain underexplored? RQ 5 : How can bibliometric evidence on intersectionality inform broader debates on racial justice, gender equity, and interdisciplinary collaboration? Originality and Contribution of the Study Although the academic literature on intersectionality has expanded considerably in recent decades, especially following the institutionalization of Black feminist theories, there remains a notable gap in bibliometric research that systematically examines global scientific production on this theme with a specific focus on Black women. While some studies have explored the dissemination of intersectionality in academic networks (e.g., Kozlowski et al., 2022 ; Moradi, 2020 ), these works often adopt broader scopes, considering multiple identity intersections or limiting the analysis to specific disciplines or geographic regions. To date, no bibliometric study was found that comprehensively maps the global scholarly output on intersectionality as it specifically relates to Black women, neither in terms of volume, thematic clusters, collaboration networks, nor institutional or regional distribution. This study, therefore, fills an essential void by providing the first large-scale bibliometric analysis dedicated to mapping how intersectionality, as a theoretical and political framework, has been applied to understand the social exclusion and discrimination faced by Black women. By offering an overview of the field from a global and interdisciplinary perspective, the study not only identifies epistemological silences and asymmetries in knowledge production but also contributes to the internationalization of Black feminist epistemologies through a quantitative and visual analytical lens. Goals of the Study To map global trends in publications on intersectionality, racism, and gender from 2011 to 2025, including patterns of productivity, geographical contributions, and international collaboration. To identify the leading countries, institutions, and journals contributing to this field and assess their influence. To explore citation and networks to understand the intellectual structure and collaboration patterns of the field. To uncover thematic clusters and emerging areas, such as environmental racism, sexism, and discrimination, that deserve greater scholarly attention. To discuss the broader implications of intersectionality research for advancing racial and gender equity and for shaping future interdisciplinary collaboration. 2. Methodology 2.1. Study design This study adopts a quantitative, descriptive, and exploratory design, rooted in bibliometric and scientometric methodologies. Its primary objective is to identify, quantify, and interpret publication patterns, intellectual structures, and thematic trends in scholarly literature addressing the intersectionality of race and gender, with a particular focus on the social exclusion of Black women. The analytical strategy was guided by a systematic protocol for data retrieval, refinement, and analysis. Figure 1 displays the flowchart outlining the search protocol, including the development of search terms, database selection, screening procedures, and final inclusion criteria. This diagram illustrates the methodological trajectory adopted to ensure transparency, replicability, and methodological rigor in the document selection and analysis process (Fig. 1 ). INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE 2.2 Justification of Timeframe and Search Design The analysis was conducted using two major multidisciplinary databases: Web of Science and Scopus. These platforms were chosen due to their extensive indexing of peer-reviewed academic literature across the humanities, social sciences, and health sciences. The timeframe selected for this bibliometric analysis, from January 2011 to July 2025, is grounded in significant socio-political and academic shifts that influenced the global discourse on intersectionality, race, and gender. The period begins shortly after the consolidation of intersectionality as a critical analytical framework in global academic debates, particularly following key publications such as Collins (2010) and the increasing incorporation of intersectional perspectives in international policy frameworks (e.g., UN Women strategies post-2011). Furthermore, this period encompasses landmark movements such as Black Lives Matter (starting in 2013), the MeToo movement (2017), and international feminist mobilizations that have reignited discussions around systemic racism, gender violence, and Black women’s social invisibility, all of which contributed to a measurable increase in scientific output on the subject. The endpoint of 2025 was established to include early access publications and in-press articles up to the date of data collection, thus reflecting the most up-to-date trends in the field. Including articles labeled for publication in 2025 allowed for a forward-looking perspective on the evolution of intersectionality research, capturing the newest emerging themes and collaborative patterns. To ensure conceptual precision, inclusion criteria were restricted to studies that explicitly engaged with “intersectionality” as a theoretical or methodological construct. Publications addressing “race,” “gender,” or “Black women” in isolation, without reference to intersectionality, were excluded unless these dimensions were clearly framed through an intersectional lens within the abstract or keywords. This decision was critical in avoiding conceptual dilution and ensuring analytical consistency with the study’s core objective. A preliminary screening of abstracts and keywords was performed to verify whether the use of these terms aligned with the theoretical foundations of intersectionality, as defined by Crenshaw ( 1989 ) and Collins ( 2015 ). The search strings were tailored for each database syntax and structured to maximize both specificity and coverage. The query used in Scopus was: "intersectionality" AND ("Black women" OR "Afro-descendant women") AND ("aging" OR "older adults") AND ("identity" OR "voice suppression" OR "invisibility") This strategy was adjusted for the Web of Science using equivalent Boolean operators and truncation rules. Searches were applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords to ensure contextual relevance while minimizing false positives. Duplicates were identified using reference management software and manually validated. To ensure replicability and transparency, the full search protocol, including search strings, filters, and export formats (BibTeX and TXT), has been documented and is available upon reasonable request. The use of open-source tools (RStudio, Bibliometrix, and Biblioshiny) further supports the reproducibility of the analysis, and the project adheres to the FAIR data principles (Wilkinson et al., 2016 ). Additionally, a detailed log of inclusion and exclusion decisions was maintained by two independent reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus, further ensuring methodological rigor and minimizing selection bias. 2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, early access publications, editorials, reviews, conference proceedings, and letters that directly addressed themes related to intersectionality, racism, and gender. Studies were considered eligible if they provided empirical or theoretical contributions aligned with the objectives of this bibliometric review. Exclusion criteria involved the removal of duplicated records, non-peer-reviewed materials, theses, dissertations, and grey literature. Duplicate entries were manually screened and eliminated. The screening and selection process was carried out independently by two reviewers to ensure consistency, minimize bias, and maintain methodological rigor. 2.4. Tools for Bibliometric Analysis Data were analyzed using the R package Bibliometrix (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017) and visualized through Biblioshiny. To support text organization, refinement of results, and verification of coherence between sections, artificial intelligence tools were employed. These tools were used exclusively as assistive technologies for language refinement and consistency checking, without interfering in data collection, selection, or analysis. Their use followed ethical research practices and the FAIR principles for transparency and reproducibility (Wilkinson et al., 2016 ). The analysis focused on multiple bibliometric indicators, including the annual volume of publications and citations, the most productive authors and institutions, the geographical distribution of scientific output, and patterns of co-authorship and international collaboration. It also included the exploration of thematic evolution based on keyword co-occurrence networks and longitudinal trend analysis. To enhance the visual presentation of the results and enable interactive exploration, the data were also imported into Biblioshiny, a user-friendly graphical interface integrated with the Bibliometrix package. Furthermore, the interpretation of the bibliometric indicators was grounded in classical bibliometric laws. Bradford’s Law guided the identification of core journals that concentrate the highest volume of relevant publications. Lotka’s Law informed the analysis of author productivity, highlighting the unequal distribution of contributions among researchers. Zipf’s Law supported the interpretation of keyword frequency and the hierarchical organization of thematic structures. These theoretical foundations contributed to the analytical rigor, methodological consistency, and interpretive depth of the study. While Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny offer powerful tools for mapping scientific production, these techniques rely primarily on quantitative indicators. As such, they are limited in capturing the nuanced, contextual, and discursive dimensions of intersectionality research. To partially address these limitations, a complementary qualitative analysis of the most cited articles and thematic clusters was conducted by the authors, allowing for a more interpretative understanding of how issues of race, gender, and exclusion are framed in the literature. 2.5. Ethical Considerations Since this study involved only secondary data from publicly accessible databases, it did not require approval from an ethics committee. No personal data, interventions, or direct involvement with human participants were part of the research procedures. All processes complied with ethical standards for bibliometric studies. 3. Results 3.1 Bibliometric analysis of the general results of the publications A total of 132 documents were identified in the Web of Science database and 195 in the Scopus database, resulting in a total of 324 documents after the exclusion of 3 duplicates. Following the initial screening, duplicates were manually removed, and selected filters were applied. Altogether, 324 studies were included in the analysis, comprising 308 full articles, 13 early access articles, 7 review papers, and a smaller proportion of other formats, such as 2 book reviews, 1 editorial, 7 letters, 2 meeting abstracts, and 2 conference proceedings. A total of 919 authors, 449 institutions, 28 countries, and 579 keywords cited by the authors were identified. Full-length articles accounted for most of the documents retrieved, representing 73.17% (n = 180). All studies included in this review were thoroughly reviewed in full by the authors. Table 1 presents an analysis of the results, including a temporal breakdown and the number of sources addressing the thematic focus of the field during the specific period analyzed (2011–2025), along with the total number of documents and the publication growth rate. Growth percentages were calculated based on averages and, when necessary, using percentage values. An average of 20.34 references per study included in this review was also observed. Scientific studies published between 2011 and 2025 are illustrated in Fig. 2 . The total number of publications increased significantly each year (Fig. 2 A), while the number of citations also followed an upward trend beginning in 2019 (Fig. 2 B). Specifically, publication counts reached 21 in 2020, 22 in 2021, 38 in 2023, and 8 in 2024. Table 1 Summary of the main characteristics of the included studies Classification Results Timespan 2011:2025 Sources 249 Documents 324 Number of authors 1013 Authors of single-authored 69 Document average age 3.92 Average citations per document 18.45 Author’s Keywords (DE) 919 Co-author per document 3.41 International Co-autrhorship (%) 4.63 Annual Growth rate (%) 16.61 Types of studies 180 Article 308 Articles in early access 01 Book review 02 Editorials 01 Letter 07 Meeting abstract 02 Review 07 Source: Bibliometrix/R-Studio (2025) Regarding citations, an average of 92.52 citations per year was recorded. A consistent upward trajectory was observed over the past five years, with a total of 441 citations in 2020, 618 in 2021, 747 in 2022, 763 in 2023, and 130 in 2024. INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE Scientific articles identified in this review enabled the delineation of research progression into three distinct phases: Nascent phase (pre-2011) : A limited number of articles were published during this period, with an annual average of fewer than 22 documents, accounting for 10.2% of the total publications. Emergent development phase (2007–2017) : This stage exhibited an upward trajectory in research activity, albeit at a moderate level, totaling 48 articles published. Accelerated growth phase (2017–2024) : Beginning in 2017, publication output surged markedly, signaling the thematic consolidation of the subject as a significant area of scholarly interest. 3.2 Global collaboration among countries/regions and institutions Figure 3 depicts the international collaboration network among countries in studies on racism and social exclusion of Black women. Each node on the map represents a country, institution, or author, with node size corresponding to the number of publications. Following article identification and screening, affiliation data, including authors’ institutional affiliations and countries of origin, were collected. The collaboration map reveals clear clusters of countries with strong collaborative ties and discernible regional patterns. In this review, a particularly notable collaborative nexus was observed between the United States and other countries including Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, China, India, Australia, and Brazil (see Fig. 3 ). INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE Publications addressing racism, and the social and racial exclusion of Black women were produced across 449 institutions distributed among 22 countries/regions. Figure 3 provides additional information into the most prolific countries and institutions contributing to this field. Regarding national scientific output over time, the six most productive countries were: the United States (210 records; 75.2%), Canada (27 records; 9.3%), the United Kingdom (16 records; 5.7%), South Africa (6 records; 2.1%), Brazil (5 records; 1.8%), and Australia (4 records; 1.4%). The United States accounted for most publications, and its growth trend appears to be significantly more accelerated than that of other countries (Fig. 4 a). With respect to institutional contributions, Harvard University, followed by the University of California and the University of Toronto, emerged as the most prominent affiliations within this research domain (Fig. 4 b). These findings may support the identification of prevailing research trends and offer guidance for establishing institutional partnerships or future collaborations. Results indicate that North America continues to lead the scientific output on racism and the social exclusion of Black women. In the geographic distribution of publications, the United States clearly dominates both in terms of institutional output and author productivity. While a few contributions emerge from African countries, these are scarce, and only the University of South Africa appears in the data as a notable institutional contributor. This highlights the limited presence of African scholarship in global intersectionality research, despite the continent’s centrality to the lived experiences of Black women. Figure 4 c displays the ratio of single-country publications (SCP) versus multi-country publications (MCP), reflecting levels of domestic and international collaboration among authors. Once again, the United States demonstrates a high level of participation and leadership. INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE 3.3 Most cited journals, countries, and authors In the present study, 93 academic journals were identified as active contributors to research on racism and the social exclusion of Black women. Quantitative data were compiled to highlight the most cited journals, the countries with the highest citation counts, and the most influential authors (Fig. 5 a). The five journals with the highest number of citations were: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (273 citations), Journal of Black Psychology (172), Psychology of Women Quarterly (153), Sex Roles (144), and Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology (126). The United States led with the highest number of citations (3,763), followed by the United Kingdom (213), Canada (46), and Brazil (34) (Fig. 5 b). Figure 5 c displays the most influential authors contributing to the field under analysis. INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE 3.4 Citation Count and Keywords Global citation count refers to the total number of times a document has been cited across all publications indexed in each database, whereas local citations refer to the number of times a document has been cited by other documents within the specific dataset analyzed in this study (Fig. 6 ). During the analyzed period, a total of 9,998 cited references were identified. Among these, the journal Sex Roles emerged as the most cited source (n = 446), followed by Social Problems (n = 382), Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology (n = 347), Ethnic and Racial Studies (n = 286), and Psychology of Women Quarterly (n = 274) (Table 2 ). With respect to local author impact, based on the H-index, the journals Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Frontiers in Psychiatry were identified as the most influential. Table 2 presents the analysis of the G and M indices and their relationship to the total citation count per author. INSERT FIGURE 6 HERE Table 2 Analysis of the H, G, and M indices and total citations of the top 10 scientific journals. Source h-index g-index m-index TC NP Journal of family theory and review 4 5 571 62 5 Sex roles 4 5 267 216 5 Social science & medicine 4 5 308 131 5 Sociology compass 4 4 308 116 4 Ethnicity & health 3 3 0.5 197 3 Journal of black studies 3 3 0.5 27 3 Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities 3 4 333 49 4 Qualitative psychology 3 3 0.25 63 3 Sociology of race and ethnicity 3 4 0.3 63 4 Source:Biblionshiny bibliometrix (2025) In this study, a total of 579 author keywords were identified. The most frequently used terms were sexism (n = 47; 17%), intersectionality (n = 35; 13%), and discrimination (n = 28; 10%), representing the main topics and conceptual axes explored in the bibliometric review (Figs. 7 a and 7 b). Figure 7 c presents a word cloud generated from the keywords of the publications analyzed in this bibliometric review, covering the period from January 2011 to July 2025. The most prominent terms include “intersectionality,” “women,” “gender,” “race,” “health,” and “discrimination,” reflecting the centrality of these concepts in scholarly debates. Other recurrent keywords, such as “experiences,” “identity,” “mental health,” and “United States,” highlight both thematic concerns and the geographic concentration of research. Emerging terms like “environmental racism,” “stereotypes,” and “public policy” appear less frequently but suggest expanding areas of inquiry within the field. Figure 7 e illustrates the frequency of topics over the past ten years (2011 to 2025), highlighting the occurrence and distribution of different subjects throughout the analyzed period. This approach enables the identification of trends, emerging interests, and shifting research foci within the investigated field. 4. Discussion The findings of this study reveal a growing academic interest in intersectionality, race, and gender, particularly in the context of the social exclusion of Black women. The steady increase in publications since 2017 demonstrates the consolidation of intersectionality as a significant analytical framework in contemporary scholarship. However, the results also pointed important asymmetries in knowledge production, with the United States and other Western countries dominating the field, while contributions from the Global South remain limited. This pattern raises concerns about epistemic imbalances and the underrepresentation of perspectives from regions where the lived experiences of Black women are most acutely felt. Although intersectionality is increasingly referenced in scientific literature, few studies have quantitatively assessed how it is operationalized in scholarly outputs (Kozlowski et al., 2022 ). As shown by Thelwall ( 2023 ), bibliometric indicators can reflect structural inequalities, often reinforcing institutional and gender biases. While some race-focused bibliometric studies exist in adjacent fields, such as Library and Information Science (Mongeon et al., 2021 ), no study to date has applied a similar methodology to intersectionality with a global and race-gender exclusion lens. Growth of Scientific Production The results indicate a clear upward trajectory in scientific production on intersectionality, particularly from 2017 onwards. This pattern suggests the consolidation of intersectionality as a central analytical framework across disciplines, especially in gender studies, psychology, and social sciences. The growing number of publications aligns with broader global debates on structural racism, gender inequality, and social justice, which gained prominence in both academic and political agendas during the last decade (UN, 2015). Previous studies corroborate this observation. For instance, Kozlowski et al. ( 2022 ) conducted a large-scale bibliometric analysis of intersectional identities in scientific publications, demonstrating a pronounced increase in intersectional approaches after 2015. Similarly, Brünig et al. ( 2024 ), in their systematic review of bioethical literature, identified a marked expansion of intersectional perspectives in health-related social science research. More recently, Ismail et al. ( 2025 ) mapped global trends in identity studies over the past decade, showing that interest in intersectionality has significantly intensified in recent years. Although the rise in publications demonstrates the growing legitimacy of the concept, it also raises questions about whether this expansion is accompanied by theoretical depth and methodological innovation, or whether it reflects a more superficial adoption of intersectionality as an academic trend. Geographic, Institutional, and Intellectual Structures Our results identified the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada as the most prolific countries, this dominance does not necessarily correspond to the regions where the realities of Black women are most acute. This epistemic imbalance reflects not only the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000 ) but marginalizes perspectives from regions where the lived experiences of Black women are most pressing, such as those from Brazil, South Africa, and across the African continent. For instance, countries such as Brazil and South Africa, which have some of the largest Black populations and longstanding traditions of Black feminist scholarship, remain underrepresented in the bibliometric landscape. This imbalance reflects not only the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000 ) but also the systemic undervaluation of intellectual contributions produced in the Global South. Voices like Awa Thiam ( 1978 ), whose pioneering work Black Sisters, Speak Out laid the foundations for African feminist thought; Amina Mama ( 1995 ), who advanced pan-African feminist scholarship and created spaces for critical debate through Feminist Africa; Chioma Opara ( 2004 ), who theorized femalism to foreground African women’s subjectivities; and Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah ( 2021 ), whose contemporary writing amplifies African women’s sexual narratives, remain underrepresented in the global bibliometric landscape. Similarly, in Latin America, Lélia Gonzalez ( 1983 ) provided groundbreaking analyses of racism, sexism, and cultural identity, situating Black women’s experiences in Brazil within a broader critique of coloniality. Future Directions and Social Relevance The findings of this bibliometric review pointed not only the quantitative patterns of research on intersectionality, race, and gender, but also broader social implications that call for deeper exploration. The concentration of publications in North America and Europe reflects enduring asymmetries in global knowledge production, which risk reinforcing epistemic exclusion of voices from the Global South. Addressing these imbalances requires more inclusive academic collaborations that amplify perspectives from underrepresented regions, particularly where they lived realities of Black women are most visible and pressing. In addition to the central themes of sexism, discrimination, and intersectionality, the study identified several emerging areas of inquiry that are gradually gaining visibility. These include environmental racism, which highlights the disproportionate exposure of racialized communities to ecological risks; mental health, which connects systemic discrimination to psychosocial well-being; and public policy, which underscores the institutional dimensions of inequality and the potential role of state interventions in addressing structural injustices. The prominence of these themes underscores the complexity of overlapping forms of oppression and the necessity of moving beyond quantitative bibliometric mapping. While bibliometric methods are valuable for identifying intellectual structures and thematic clusters, future research should incorporate qualitative approaches, such as narrative analysis, critical discourse studies, and participatory methods, to capture the nuances of identity, agency, and resistance that cannot be fully conveyed through quantitative indicators alone. One particularly relevant area for expansion is the study of environmental racism, which intersects with race, class, and gender in shaping disproportionate exposure of marginalized communities, especially Black women, to environmental risks and socioecological exclusion. Incorporating this dimension into future intersectional research could strengthen the dialogue between bibliometric evidence and critical social theory, bridging scientometric mapping with urgent debates on climate justice and structural inequality. The findings of this study not only map scholarly trends but also raise critical questions about epistemological justice. The underrepresentation of researchers and institutions from the Global South, especially those from regions with large Black populations such as Brazil and South Africa, reveals what may be termed a form of epistemological risk. This refers to the systemic marginalization of knowledge produced by non-Western, racialized, and gendered subjects, reinforcing what Quijano ( 2000 ) calls the coloniality of knowledge, a structure that privileges Eurocentric epistemologies and delegitimizes alternative ways of knowing. Mignolo ( 2009 ) further argues that this epistemic hierarchy sustains global inequalities by limiting who can speak, what can be said, and how knowledge is validated. From a policy and institutional perspective, this bibliometric mapping underscores the urgent need to expand funding, collaboration, and visibility for scholars in the Global South, particularly Black women. Despite having rich traditions of Black feminist thought, countries like Brazil and South Africa remain peripheral in intersectionality research. This exclusion is not accidental but reflects structural barriers including linguistic imperialism (with English as the dominant academic language), limited access to high-impact journals, and the underfunding of social sciences in postcolonial contexts (Santos, 2007 ; Ribeiro, 2018 ). Such exclusion also reveals the epistemic violence described by black feminist thinkers like Lélia Gonzalez ( 1983 ) and bell hooks (1984), who denounce how the experiences and theoretical contributions of Black women are often erased or instrumentalized within dominant academic discourse. Addressing these gaps is thus not only a scholarly imperative, but an ethical and political one. As intersectionality gains ground as a critical framework for analyzing inequality, it is vital that the voices and lived experiences of those most affected, Black women in the Global South, be central to the knowledge produced. This bibliometric analysis serves both as a diagnostic and a call to action: to decolonize academic knowledge, foster inclusive scholarly networks, and advocate for epistemic justice in global science. Based on the underrepresentation of Black women researchers and the concentration of scientific output in a limited number of Western institutions, the following policy recommendations are proposed: Promote the inclusion of Black women scholars in international research networks : Academic organizations, funding bodies, and journals should proactively include Black women, particularly from the Global South, in collaborative projects, editorial boards, peer review panels, and scientific events. This inclusion must go beyond symbolic representation, ensuring equitable decision-making power and access to publication opportunities. Develop funding calls specifically focused on racial intersectionality : National and international research agencies should launch calls for proposals that explicitly support research projects led by or centered on Black women and intersectional frameworks. These calls should include financial resources, mentorship structures, and publication support to reduce structural barriers. Foster South-South collaboration : One of the most effective strategies to overcome epistemic dependency on the Global North is to strengthen networks among researchers and institutions in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. This includes creating digital platforms, joint publications, and mobility programs that facilitate knowledge exchange and co-production of science from a Global South perspective. Include intersectionality in evaluation and policy instruments : Scientific evaluation systems, including those of universities, research agencies, and international rankings, should incorporate intersectionality as a criterion for assessing equity, diversity, and social impact. This is particularly relevant given recent findings that show the growing academic engagement with intersectionality as both a methodological and ethical imperative in science policy (Brünig et al., 2024 ; Ismail et al., 2025 ). Leverage bibliometric tools as advocacy instruments : The current study exemplifies how bibliometric methods can be used not only for academic analysis but also as tools for advocacy. By making visible the structural imbalances in knowledge production, these analyses support evidence-based reforms in academic policies and funding strategies. Limitations This study has some limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the bibliometric analysis relied exclusively on two major databases, Scopus and Web of Science . Although these are widely recognized and comprehensive, they do not index the entirety of the global scientific output, which may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies published in regional or non-indexed journals. Second, the search strategy was restricted to English-language terms, which may have introduced a linguistic bias and underestimated contributions from non-English-speaking contexts. Third, bibliometric methods, by their nature, emphasize quantitative patterns of scientific production, such as publication volume, citations, and keyword frequency, while not fully capturing the depth and nuances of theoretical debates or the quality of individual contributions. Finally, the dynamic nature of the field means that newly published works after the cut-off date (April 2025) were not included in this analysis, potentially limiting the timeliness of some findings. Conclusion This study offers a comprehensive and critical overview of global academic production on intersectionality, race, and gender, with particular attention to the social exclusion and systemic discrimination of Black women. The findings demonstrate a significant and growing scholarly engagement with intersectionality, particularly after 2015, marked by the emergence of thematic clusters such as sexism, discrimination, environmental racism, and health disparities. The analysis reveals a strong geographic concentration of research in the United States and other Western countries, evidencing ongoing epistemological risks associated with the marginalization of Global South perspectives. By identifying leading authors, institutions, journals, and collaboration networks, this study not only maps intellectual structures but also exposes the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000 ) that shapes the field. The limited participation of researchers from countries with large Black populations, such as Brazil and South Africa, underscores the urgent need for epistemic justice and inclusive research practices that amplify underrepresented voices. Beyond mapping trends, this study contributes to critical policy discussions by offering actionable recommendations: the inclusion of Black women scholars in international collaborations; targeted funding calls for intersectional research; and the integration of intersectionality as a criterion in research evaluation systems. These directions aim to strengthen South-South scientific cooperation, decolonize academic structures, and promote sustainable pathways for equity and transformation in global knowledge production. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data available The bibliometric data analyzed in this study were obtained from the Scopus database. All data supporting the findings are available upon request or can be retrieved using the search strategies described in the Methods section. No proprietary or restricted datasets were used. Ethical Approval Ethical approval was not required for this study, as it is based exclusively on secondary data from publicly accessible bibliometric databases. Informed Consent Not applicable. This study did not involve human participants or personal data. Author Contributions (anonymous version) The first author was responsible for conceptualizing and designing the study, conducting the bibliometric analysis, and drafting the manuscript. The second author contributed to data interpretation and visualization. The third author collaborated on the literature review and writing. The fourth author contributed to methodological validation and refinement of the analysis. The fifth author reviewed the final manuscript and provided critical feedback throughout the research process. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Funding Declaration (anonymous version) This research received partial financial support from the XXXXX Foundation – University XXXX, through funding from Research Support Call No. XXXXX. A research scholarship was granted to one of the authors (XXXX) as part of an institutional research program. No other authors received external funding for this study. Author Contribution L.O.N. and TMCD conceptualized and designed the study, conducted the bibliometric analysis, and wrote the main manuscript text. L.A.M. contributed to data interpretation and prepared the visualizations. M.A.F. and D.G. conducted the literature review and contributed to manuscript writing. T.M.C.D. validated the methodology and refined the analysis. D.G. critically reviewed the final version and provided feedback throughout the research process. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript. Data Availability The bibliometric data analyzed in this study were obtained from the Scopus database. All data supporting the findings are available upon request or can be retrieved using the search strategies described in the Methods section. No proprietary or restricted datasets were used. References Brünig M, Tarzian AJ, Schicktanz S (2024) How is the intersectionality approach applied in bioethics? A systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 25(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01057-5 Collins PH (2015) Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Ann Rev Sociol 41(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142 Collins PH (2019) Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press, Durham Crenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Legal Forum 1989(1):139–167 Choi Y, Cao L, Tarrence J, Zheng H, Qian Z (2025) Identifying the social mechanisms for multiracial-monoracial health disparities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12:1208. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05370-1 Davis A (1981) Women, race, & class. Random House, New York Gonzalez L (1983) Racismo e sexismo na cultura brasileira. In: Silva LAM (ed) Movimentos sociais urbanos, minorias e outros estudos. ANPOCS, Brasília, pp 223–244. [in Portuguese] hooks b (1984) Feminist theory: From margin to center. South End, Boston Ismail A, Munsi H, Yusuf AM, Hijjang P (2025) Mapping one decade of identity studies: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global trends and scholarly impact. Social Sci 14(2):92. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14020092 Kilomba G (2016) Plantation memories: Episodes of everyday racism. Unrast, Münster Kozlowski D, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Monroe White T (2022) Intersectional identities and the science of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(6):e2113067119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119 Kozlowski D, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Monroe White T (2022) Intersectional identities and the science of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(6):e2113067119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119 Mama A (1995) Beyond the masks: Race, gender and subjectivity. Routledge, London Mignolo WD (2009) Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory Cult Soc 26(7–8):159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275 Moradi B (2020) Mapping the travels of intersectionality scholarship: A citation network analysis. J Couns Psychol 67(5):583–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000422 Mongeon P, Smith E, Haustein S (2021) A bibliometric analysis of race-related research in Library and Information Science. Quant Sci Stud 2(3):900–924. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1219 Opara C (2004) Her mother’s daughter: The African writer as woman. Belpot, Port Harcourt Quijano A (2000) Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. Int Sociol 15(2):215–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005 Ribeiro D (2018) Quem tem medo do feminismo negro? Companhia das Letras, São Paulo. [in Portuguese] Santos BS (2007) Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Novos Estudos CEBRAP 79:71–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-33002007000300004 Sekyiamah ND (2021) The sex lives of African women: Self-discovery, freedom, and healing. Dialogue Books, London Thiam A (1978) Black sisters, speak out: Feminism and oppression in black Africa. Pluto, London Thelwall M (2023) Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or national bias? A systematic analysis. Res Policy 52(7):104786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104829 United Nations (2015) Sustainable Development Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls . https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5 Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A et al (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 11 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 25 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Nov, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 11 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 08 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 22 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7679011","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":541682945,"identity":"b434b2c7-c598-4db5-a8af-c625e7abb6d7","order_by":0,"name":"Larissa Oliveira Nascimento","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidade de Fortaleza","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Larissa","middleName":"Oliveira","lastName":"Nascimento","suffix":""},{"id":541682946,"identity":"5e8b9594-4b5a-442d-95da-ce8b8c1d0b2c","order_by":1,"name":"Letticia de Araújo Moura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidade de Fortaleza","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Letticia","middleName":"de Araújo","lastName":"Moura","suffix":""},{"id":541682947,"identity":"a704cbca-9003-4890-9367-dcc17c66746d","order_by":2,"name":"Thiago Medeiros da Costa Daniele","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidade de Fortaleza","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thiago","middleName":"Medeiros da Costa","lastName":"Daniele","suffix":""},{"id":541682948,"identity":"500e7110-40cd-416f-84dc-3ca119a11584","order_by":3,"name":"Mirna Albuquerque Frota","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universidade de Fortaleza","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mirna","middleName":"Albuquerque","lastName":"Frota","suffix":""},{"id":541682949,"identity":"1f3028be-5f6c-4648-8a40-4d3e297448ae","order_by":4,"name":"Danilo Garcia","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Stavanger","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Danilo","middleName":"","lastName":"Garcia","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-22 14:39:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7679011/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7679011/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95800435,"identity":"9fff1d0a-0736-4bdc-9ff7-8e97db7f0c85","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:22:38","extension":"jpg","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":199635,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1BibliometricWorkflow.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/2b16711919432a6af46eeb82.jpg"},{"id":95801901,"identity":"49df3a3f-bb62-4e5c-b753-b6d40d41a196","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:26:25","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":59599,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"0.3IntersectionalityandRace.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/3acb802683fc7294be93c286.docx"},{"id":95762276,"identity":"e6b7c70a-41d6-4a38-a88d-be58aa492ddd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":203946,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2PublicationCitationsOverTimepage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/76a271ab6952ca2d1d42d00d.jpg"},{"id":95762281,"identity":"322cb276-1926-4352-b2a6-caf3c263973f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":166514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure3InternationalCollaborationMappage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/1e79dc4d0186942a4866e802.jpg"},{"id":95762285,"identity":"1ee7a908-a692-48a1-8216-45f02cd4b3e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":615874,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure4CountryInstitutionAuthorshippage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/5f8b043e52831f50b17ac422.jpg"},{"id":95762284,"identity":"55b2cc56-df02-493b-bd7d-f983331c5668","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":504714,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure5CitedSourcesCountriesAuthorspage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/53c09a4aa118345b66ff47dd.jpg"},{"id":95762299,"identity":"494f50d1-d3a6-421a-9ba4-29cdc6434137","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":321267,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure6LocalImpactTCIndexpage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/fda8fb2f7260b26a9d8e0009.jpg"},{"id":95762304,"identity":"b4b73dce-7962-49d3-9a10-03ad697d4272","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":890430,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure7KeywordCoOccurrencepage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/fe9d5653e00cbaa9f9f17013.jpg"},{"id":95762289,"identity":"fc9ad6d6-0738-40e7-8984-49c6feec5133","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"json","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7282,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bd8f81d8f1c4468f92dda27e81e808b1.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/263bc94c32bf3fefe894d13e.json"},{"id":95801556,"identity":"28a3ef51-aaa8-4b84-9b5a-71faec2c76f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:25:41","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":95535,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bd8f81d8f1c4468f92dda27e81e808b11enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/123f3d1b034df317a00146fd.xml"},{"id":95801646,"identity":"5e428ba8-2528-4cad-b287-42a118e2ca63","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:25:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":199635,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1BibliometricWorkflow.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/a969bd256843ee31cfb5cc44.jpg"},{"id":95762306,"identity":"3ecee06c-2545-4c4d-8f40-d1b61e1046af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":203946,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2PublicationCitationsOverTimepage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/6923a3523d2a15687ba9c2a1.jpg"},{"id":95762295,"identity":"e65be871-31b6-4303-b2de-2a609954997b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":166514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure3InternationalCollaborationMappage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/7c0d95aec27cf36ab58f1f78.jpg"},{"id":95802582,"identity":"f04e6f33-1260-4b6f-9a6c-b7c93c69bc5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:28:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":615874,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure4CountryInstitutionAuthorshippage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/d253286e7b28c022d09afe51.jpg"},{"id":95762291,"identity":"759a4696-83f7-449d-b87c-7238b6149020","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":504714,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure5CitedSourcesCountriesAuthorspage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/a5291405db5d3ad12e81980a.jpg"},{"id":95762290,"identity":"a54a1644-520e-4611-abe0-f385f0f41967","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":321267,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure6LocalImpactTCIndexpage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/23451abafcd1d6533330c49c.jpg"},{"id":95762303,"identity":"8f15017c-b5fa-40f8-82da-08f3395116bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":890430,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure7KeywordCoOccurrencepage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/3f16151d27b282ab533066b7.jpg"},{"id":95801688,"identity":"d1d0bf1f-974f-4efb-bfcf-f147cbf23b45","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:25:55","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":30178,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure1BibliometricWorkflow.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/96bb91a808e36744693e2aa6.png"},{"id":95762287,"identity":"f8e6a754-adff-4339-9a5e-7667d33d4ab0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24308,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure2PublicationCitationsOverTimepage0001.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/7c6c19439a27b01bf0d08990.png"},{"id":95802056,"identity":"77fb6db2-0e8d-47d7-9f5e-06dce2ec485d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:26:43","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":23701,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure3InternationalCollaborationMappage0001.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/2c5600c66ebcab5428f4fad4.png"},{"id":95762286,"identity":"ce321076-d061-4c92-88f0-bc030ca5d7c7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":69735,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure4CountryInstitutionAuthorshippage0001.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/f6e0cc9f9457ec7617024297.png"},{"id":95802284,"identity":"7f61ad5b-e6d4-46c4-ac3c-24e7cfb4774b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:27:23","extension":"png","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":50771,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure5CitedSourcesCountriesAuthorspage0001.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/707b41972c9df0927fd9ae81.png"},{"id":95762301,"identity":"be35ffa4-1b93-4897-a8b9-b61382d76047","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"png","order_by":22,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":29597,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure6LocalImpactTCIndexpage0001.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/fc6c82cfcb8fad7d4f894451.png"},{"id":95762298,"identity":"b459df35-6ae8-42af-97e1-be392abc947b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"png","order_by":23,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":112846,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure7KeywordCoOccurrencepage0001.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/d118288f4bbb60ecfa8dc0b6.png"},{"id":95801718,"identity":"2a554ad6-7006-466a-9b09-7296720892cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:26:00","extension":"xml","order_by":24,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93398,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bd8f81d8f1c4468f92dda27e81e808b11structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/8cba2e9bca08d6265e448629.xml"},{"id":95762300,"identity":"cc018015-7d0f-4649-b0f2-9a279a4d46c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"html","order_by":25,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":101603,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/78503fe12ac341c5a32027b7.html"},{"id":95762274,"identity":"bb29c869-4b7b-40dd-85a0-f78365e47e69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":199635,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBibliometric Review Workflow\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1BibliometricWorkflow.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/50a8b50abd599d7cc8647579.jpg"},{"id":95762275,"identity":"8f96cfd5-cea6-46ce-b8e3-3fd51833641f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":133832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Overall trend in the number of publications on the topic between 2011 and July 2025; (b) Average number of article publications/citations per year\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2PublicationCitationsOverTimepage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/c138333acca3eff84618ff5e.jpg"},{"id":95802117,"identity":"7984c4de-d8d5-42c8-89b5-d07f75de61ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:26:56","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInternational collaboration map on studies addressing racism, social exclusion, and prejudice against Black women\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3InternationalCollaborationMappage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/a59aa05a5c32c491f600b163.jpg"},{"id":95762279,"identity":"9e62e6b2-3b3f-4095-8766-b041e05308e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":373049,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Scientific production by country from 2011 to 2025; (b) Most prominent institutions in the research field; (c) Author affiliations by country\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4CountryInstitutionAuthorshippage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/e58f1879d3a315cbc5eeb0c4.jpg"},{"id":95801710,"identity":"8d5f02fb-8120-4d31-8c6d-e0affc0e0481","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:26:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":320760,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Most cited journals over time from 2011 to 2025; (b) Most cited countries on the topic under study; (c) Most influential authors\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5CitedSourcesCountriesAuthorspage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/5498bbd6fb8de97cba45152c.jpg"},{"id":95801850,"identity":"a1e1901c-af5f-4019-b2c0-9426f9b82f66","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:26:19","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":179686,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocal impact of the most cited journals based on the total citation (TC) index\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure6LocalImpactTCIndexpage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/99fc13186f27a325eb04884c.jpg"},{"id":95762297,"identity":"96ae96a2-05bc-4c37-85e5-9f4f60ab3784","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-12 18:21:40","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":515415,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-occurrence analysis: (a) Most relevant keywords; (b) Temporal frequency of keyword occurrence; (c) TreeMap of keywords identified between 2011 and July 2025; (d) Word cloud of the main keywords; (e) Topic frequency from 2011 to 2025\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure7KeywordCoOccurrencepage0001.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/78b6d0d2aedbe39db2b593cf.jpg"},{"id":95805443,"identity":"1f8d4be0-da7a-451d-a6aa-f05c58c8d186","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-13 08:41:17","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2859076,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7679011/v1/1d646f45-4c05-48d5-af44-63a67bd74273.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Intersectionality, aging, and invisibility: a global review of black women’s experiences in academic research","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe debate on intersectionality has long been approached in complex and multidimensional ways (Crenshaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Collins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Choi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, the ways in which intersectionality affects institutions and is represented within global academic research remain less clearly articulated. Persistent regional and global disparities illustrate that countries with large Black populations often continue to face significant structural barriers, including limited resources and inadequate conditions for addressing systemic exclusion (Ribeiro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kilomba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This reinforces the need to interrogate both the epistemic exclusions that shape the production of knowledge and the material conditions that perpetuate inequities within the academic system. The engagement with intersectionality reflects long-standing critiques of how systems of race, gender, and class operate in interdependent ways to structure inequality in society (Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). These critiques also emphasize how mainstream feminist discourse has often neglected the voices and experiences of Black and marginalized women (hooks, 1984). More recently, intersectionality has been advanced as a critical social theory that explains how power functions simultaneously across multiple domains and institutions (Collins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Although the concept of intersectionality has been widely examined in feminist and critical race studies, few studies have systematically mapped the scientific literature through a bibliometric lens, particularly focusing on the global exclusion of Black women. Together, these perspectives pointed the importance of mapping how intersectionality has been addressed in the academic literature, as such analyses make it possible to uncover dominant trends while also exposing persistent silences and disparities in global knowledge production.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, the aim of this study is not only to relate how Black women experience social and academic marginalization but also to emphasize how research conducted by Black scholars remains underrepresented, whether in terms of partnerships, visibility, or structural inequalities more broadly. (Crenshaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Collins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Gonzalez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the growing academic interest in intersectionality as a framework for analyzing race, gender, and social inequality, there is still a lack of bibliometric research systematically examining the dynamics of this field. While many studies have explored the theoretical and applied dimensions of intersectionality, few have provided a structured mapping of global research trends, key contributors, and intellectual structures. Bibliometric analysis offers a robust approach to uncover patterns in scientific production, identify influential authors, institutions, and journals, and trace the evolution of thematic clusters. Considering the increasing academic relevance of intersectionality, particularly in discussions of racism and gender discrimination, this study address to map and analyze global scientific production on the intersectionality of race and gender, with a specific focus on the social exclusion and discrimination faced by Black women. Using bibliometric techniques, the review identifies publication trends, leading contributors, and thematic developments from 2011 to 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSignificance of the study\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive review of the literature on intersectionality, race, and gender reveals a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches; however, there is still a lack of bibliometric studies that systematically analyze research trends, collaboration networks, and intellectual structures in this field specially to understand the central discussion onf this topic. The use of bibliometric tools, such as the R Bibliometrix package, makes it possible to generate quantitative data into publication outputs, citation patterns, and authorship networks, while also identifying thematic clusters and emerging topics within intersectionality research. Although intersectionality has been extensively discussed in disciplines such as sociology, psychology, law, and gender studies, a significant gap remains in the literature regarding the systematic mapping of how the concept has been applied, particularly in studies focusing on racism, sexism, and the social exclusion of Black women across different academic domains and cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBibliometric analysis allows for the mapping of research, identifying key scholars, leading institutions, and influential countries and journals. It also uncovers collaboration networks and thematic clusters that shape the discourse on intersectionality, racism, and gender. By analyzing citation patterns and collaboration maps, researchers can gain a clearer understanding of the theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches that structure this field. Taken together, these analyses will help guide future research directions on intersectionality, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of how race, gender, and social exclusion intersect to shape lived experiences in diverse contexts. This study also aims to expose potential disparities in the visibility and recognition of Black researchers, their institutions, and their countries within this field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Questions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 1\u003c/b\u003e: What are the global publication trends on intersectionality, racism, and gender in scientific literature from 2011 to 2025?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 2\u003c/b\u003e: Which countries and institutions lead research on the social exclusion of Black women, and how do their contributions shape the field?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 3\u003c/b\u003e: What do citation and co-authorship networks reveal about the intellectual and collaborative structure of research on intersectionality?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 4\u003c/b\u003e: What are the most relevant keywords and thematic clusters, and which emerging areas (e.g., environmental racism, health disparities) remain underexplored?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRQ 5\u003c/b\u003e: How can bibliometric evidence on intersectionality inform broader debates on racial justice, gender equity, and interdisciplinary collaboration?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOriginality and Contribution of the Study\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough the academic literature on intersectionality has expanded considerably in recent decades, especially following the institutionalization of Black feminist theories, there remains a notable gap in bibliometric research that systematically examines global scientific production on this theme with a specific focus on Black women. While some studies have explored the dissemination of intersectionality in academic networks (e.g., Kozlowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Moradi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), these works often adopt broader scopes, considering multiple identity intersections or limiting the analysis to specific disciplines or geographic regions. To date, no bibliometric study was found that comprehensively maps the global scholarly output on intersectionality as it specifically relates to Black women, neither in terms of volume, thematic clusters, collaboration networks, nor institutional or regional distribution. This study, therefore, fills an essential void by providing the first large-scale bibliometric analysis dedicated to mapping how intersectionality, as a theoretical and political framework, has been applied to understand the social exclusion and discrimination faced by Black women. By offering an overview of the field from a global and interdisciplinary perspective, the study not only identifies epistemological silences and asymmetries in knowledge production but also contributes to the internationalization of Black feminist epistemologies through a quantitative and visual analytical lens.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGoals of the Study\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo map global trends in publications on intersectionality, racism, and gender from 2011 to 2025, including patterns of productivity, geographical contributions, and international collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo identify the leading countries, institutions, and journals contributing to this field and assess their influence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore citation and networks to understand the intellectual structure and collaboration patterns of the field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo uncover thematic clusters and emerging areas, such as environmental racism, sexism, and discrimination, that deserve greater scholarly attention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo discuss the broader implications of intersectionality research for advancing racial and gender equity and for shaping future interdisciplinary collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1. Study design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a quantitative, descriptive, and exploratory design, rooted in bibliometric and scientometric methodologies. Its primary objective is to identify, quantify, and interpret publication patterns, intellectual structures, and thematic trends in scholarly literature addressing the intersectionality of race and gender, with a particular focus on the social exclusion of Black women.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analytical strategy was guided by a systematic protocol for data retrieval, refinement, and analysis. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e displays the flowchart outlining the search protocol, including the development of search terms, database selection, screening procedures, and final inclusion criteria. This diagram illustrates the methodological trajectory adopted to ensure transparency, replicability, and methodological rigor in the document selection and analysis process (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eINSERT\u003c/b\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eHERE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Justification of Timeframe and Search Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis was conducted using two major multidisciplinary databases: Web of Science and Scopus. These platforms were chosen due to their extensive indexing of peer-reviewed academic literature across the humanities, social sciences, and health sciences. The timeframe selected for this bibliometric analysis, from January 2011 to July 2025, is grounded in significant socio-political and academic shifts that influenced the global discourse on intersectionality, race, and gender. The period begins shortly after the consolidation of intersectionality as a critical analytical framework in global academic debates, particularly following key publications such as Collins (2010) and the increasing incorporation of intersectional perspectives in international policy frameworks (e.g., UN Women strategies post-2011). Furthermore, this period encompasses landmark movements such as Black Lives Matter (starting in 2013), the MeToo movement (2017), and international feminist mobilizations that have reignited discussions around systemic racism, gender violence, and Black women\u0026rsquo;s social invisibility, all of which contributed to a measurable increase in scientific output on the subject.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe endpoint of 2025 was established to include early access publications and in-press articles up to the date of data collection, thus reflecting the most up-to-date trends in the field. Including articles labeled for publication in 2025 allowed for a forward-looking perspective on the evolution of intersectionality research, capturing the newest emerging themes and collaborative patterns. To ensure conceptual precision, inclusion criteria were restricted to studies that explicitly engaged with \u0026ldquo;intersectionality\u0026rdquo; as a theoretical or methodological construct. Publications addressing \u0026ldquo;race,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;gender,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Black women\u0026rdquo; in isolation, without reference to intersectionality, were excluded unless these dimensions were clearly framed through an intersectional lens within the abstract or keywords. This decision was critical in avoiding conceptual dilution and ensuring analytical consistency with the study\u0026rsquo;s core objective. A preliminary screening of abstracts and keywords was performed to verify whether the use of these terms aligned with the theoretical foundations of intersectionality, as defined by Crenshaw (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and Collins (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The search strings were tailored for each database syntax and structured to maximize both specificity and coverage. The query used in Scopus was:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"intersectionality\" AND (\"Black women\" OR \"Afro-descendant women\") AND (\"aging\" OR \"older adults\") AND (\"identity\" OR \"voice suppression\" OR \"invisibility\")\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis strategy was adjusted for the Web of Science using equivalent Boolean operators and truncation rules. Searches were applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords to ensure contextual relevance while minimizing false positives. Duplicates were identified using reference management software and manually validated. To ensure replicability and transparency, the full search protocol, including search strings, filters, and export formats (BibTeX and TXT), has been documented and is available upon reasonable request. The use of open-source tools (RStudio, Bibliometrix, and Biblioshiny) further supports the reproducibility of the analysis, and the project adheres to the FAIR data principles (Wilkinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, a detailed log of inclusion and exclusion decisions was maintained by two independent reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus, further ensuring methodological rigor and minimizing selection bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, early access publications, editorials, reviews, conference proceedings, and letters that directly addressed themes related to intersectionality, racism, and gender. Studies were considered eligible if they provided empirical or theoretical contributions aligned with the objectives of this bibliometric review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion criteria involved the removal of duplicated records, non-peer-reviewed materials, theses, dissertations, and grey literature. Duplicate entries were manually screened and eliminated. The screening and selection process was carried out independently by two reviewers to ensure consistency, minimize bias, and maintain methodological rigor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4. Tools for Bibliometric Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using the R package Bibliometrix (Aria \u0026amp; Cuccurullo, 2017) and visualized through Biblioshiny. To support text organization, refinement of results, and verification of coherence between sections, artificial intelligence tools were employed. These tools were used exclusively as assistive technologies for language refinement and consistency checking, without interfering in data collection, selection, or analysis. Their use followed ethical research practices and the FAIR principles for transparency and reproducibility (Wilkinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis focused on multiple bibliometric indicators, including the annual volume of publications and citations, the most productive authors and institutions, the geographical distribution of scientific output, and patterns of co-authorship and international collaboration. It also included the exploration of thematic evolution based on keyword co-occurrence networks and longitudinal trend analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo enhance the visual presentation of the results and enable interactive exploration, the data were also imported into Biblioshiny, a user-friendly graphical interface integrated with the Bibliometrix package. Furthermore, the interpretation of the bibliometric indicators was grounded in classical bibliometric laws. Bradford\u0026rsquo;s Law guided the identification of core journals that concentrate the highest volume of relevant publications. Lotka\u0026rsquo;s Law informed the analysis of author productivity, highlighting the unequal distribution of contributions among researchers. Zipf\u0026rsquo;s Law supported the interpretation of keyword frequency and the hierarchical organization of thematic structures. These theoretical foundations contributed to the analytical rigor, methodological consistency, and interpretive depth of the study. While Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny offer powerful tools for mapping scientific production, these techniques rely primarily on quantitative indicators. As such, they are limited in capturing the nuanced, contextual, and discursive dimensions of intersectionality research. To partially address these limitations, a complementary qualitative analysis of the most cited articles and thematic clusters was conducted by the authors, allowing for a more interpretative understanding of how issues of race, gender, and exclusion are framed in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.5. Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince this study involved only secondary data from publicly accessible databases, it did not require approval from an ethics committee. No personal data, interventions, or direct involvement with human participants were part of the research procedures. All processes complied with ethical standards for bibliometric studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Bibliometric analysis of the general results of the publications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 132 documents were identified in the Web of Science database and 195 in the Scopus database, resulting in a total of 324 documents after the exclusion of 3 duplicates. Following the initial screening, duplicates were manually removed, and selected filters were applied. Altogether, 324 studies were included in the analysis, comprising 308 full articles, 13 early access articles, 7 review papers, and a smaller proportion of other formats, such as 2 book reviews, 1 editorial, 7 letters, 2 meeting abstracts, and 2 conference proceedings. A total of 919 authors, 449 institutions, 28 countries, and 579 keywords cited by the authors were identified. Full-length articles accounted for most of the documents retrieved, representing 73.17% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;180). All studies included in this review were thoroughly reviewed in full by the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents an analysis of the results, including a temporal breakdown and the number of sources addressing the thematic focus of the field during the specific period analyzed (2011\u0026ndash;2025), along with the total number of documents and the publication growth rate. Growth percentages were calculated based on averages and, when necessary, using percentage values. An average of 20.34 references per study included in this review was also observed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScientific studies published between 2011 and 2025 are illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The total number of publications increased significantly each year (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA), while the number of citations also followed an upward trend beginning in 2019 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). Specifically, publication counts reached 21 in 2020, 22 in 2021, 38 in 2023, and 8 in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of the main characteristics of the included studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTimespan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2011:2025\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSources\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e249\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDocuments\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e324\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of authors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1013\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthors of single-authored\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDocument average age\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage citations per document\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Keywords (DE)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e919\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCo-author per document\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInternational Co-autrhorship (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnnual Growth rate (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTypes of studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArticles in early access\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBook review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEditorials\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLetter\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting abstract\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource: Bibliometrix/R-Studio\u003c/em\u003e (2025)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding citations, an average of 92.52 citations per year was recorded. A consistent upward trajectory was observed over the past five years, with a total of 441 citations in 2020, 618 in 2021, 747 in 2022, 763 in 2023, and 130 in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eINSERT\u003c/b\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eHERE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScientific articles identified in this review enabled the delineation of research progression into three distinct phases:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNascent phase (pre-2011)\u003c/b\u003e: A limited number of articles were published during this period, with an annual average of fewer than 22 documents, accounting for 10.2% of the total publications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEmergent development phase (2007\u0026ndash;2017)\u003c/b\u003e: This stage exhibited an upward trajectory in research activity, albeit at a moderate level, totaling 48 articles published.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAccelerated growth phase (2017\u0026ndash;2024)\u003c/b\u003e: Beginning in 2017, publication output surged markedly, signaling the thematic consolidation of the subject as a significant area of scholarly interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Global collaboration among countries/regions and institutions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e depicts the international collaboration network among countries in studies on racism and social exclusion of Black women. Each node on the map represents a country, institution, or author, with node size corresponding to the number of publications. Following article identification and screening, affiliation data, including authors\u0026rsquo; institutional affiliations and countries of origin, were collected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe collaboration map reveals clear clusters of countries with strong collaborative ties and discernible regional patterns. In this review, a particularly notable collaborative nexus was observed between the United States and other countries including Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, China, India, Australia, and Brazil (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eINSERT\u003c/b\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eHERE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublications addressing racism, and the social and racial exclusion of Black women were produced across 449 institutions distributed among 22 countries/regions. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e provides additional information into the most prolific countries and institutions contributing to this field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding national scientific output over time, the six most productive countries were: the United States (210 records; 75.2%), Canada (27 records; 9.3%), the United Kingdom (16 records; 5.7%), South Africa (6 records; 2.1%), Brazil (5 records; 1.8%), and Australia (4 records; 1.4%). The United States accounted for most publications, and its growth trend appears to be significantly more accelerated than that of other countries (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ea).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith respect to institutional contributions, Harvard University, followed by the University of California and the University of Toronto, emerged as the most prominent affiliations within this research domain (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eb). These findings may support the identification of prevailing research trends and offer guidance for establishing institutional partnerships or future collaborations. Results indicate that North America continues to lead the scientific output on racism and the social exclusion of Black women.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the geographic distribution of publications, the United States clearly dominates both in terms of institutional output and author productivity. While a few contributions emerge from African countries, these are scarce, and only the University of South Africa appears in the data as a notable institutional contributor. This highlights the limited presence of African scholarship in global intersectionality research, despite the continent\u0026rsquo;s centrality to the lived experiences of Black women.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ec displays the ratio of single-country publications (SCP) versus multi-country publications (MCP), reflecting levels of domestic and international collaboration among authors. Once again, the United States demonstrates a high level of participation and leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eINSERT\u003c/b\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eHERE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Most cited journals, countries, and authors\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the present study, 93 academic journals were identified as active contributors to research on racism and the social exclusion of Black women. Quantitative data were compiled to highlight the most cited journals, the countries with the highest citation counts, and the most influential authors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ea). The five journals with the highest number of citations were: \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (273 citations), \u003cem\u003eJournal of Black Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (172), \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Women Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e (153), \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e (144), and \u003cem\u003eCultural Diversity \u0026amp; Ethnic Minority Psychology\u003c/em\u003e (126). The United States led with the highest number of citations (3,763), followed by the United Kingdom (213), Canada (46), and Brazil (34) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eb). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ec displays the most influential authors contributing to the field under analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eINSERT\u003c/b\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eHERE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Citation Count and Keywords\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGlobal citation count refers to the total number of times a document has been cited across all publications indexed in each database, whereas local citations refer to the number of times a document has been cited by other documents within the specific dataset analyzed in this study (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the analyzed period, a total of 9,998 cited references were identified. Among these, the journal \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e emerged as the most cited source (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;446), followed by \u003cem\u003eSocial Problems\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;382), \u003cem\u003eCultural Diversity \u0026amp; Ethnic Minority Psychology\u003c/em\u003e(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;347), \u003cem\u003eEthnic and Racial Studies\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;286), and \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Women Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;274) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith respect to local author impact, based on the H-index, the journals \u003cem\u003eCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e were identified as the most influential. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the analysis of the G and M indices and their relationship to the total citation count per author.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eINSERT\u003c/b\u003e FIGURE \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eHERE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the H, G, and M indices and total citations of the top 10 scientific journals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eh-index\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eg-index\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003em-index\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNP\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJournal of family theory and review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e571\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSex roles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e267\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e216\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial science \u0026amp; medicine\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e131\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSociology compass\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e116\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthnicity \u0026amp; health\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJournal of black studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e333\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative psychology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSociology of race and ethnicity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eSource:Biblionshiny bibliometrix (2025)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, a total of 579 author keywords were identified. The most frequently used terms were \u003cem\u003esexism\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;47; 17%), \u003cem\u003eintersectionality\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35; 13%), and \u003cem\u003ediscrimination\u003c/em\u003e (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28; 10%), representing the main topics and conceptual axes explored in the bibliometric review (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ea and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ec presents a word cloud generated from the keywords of the publications analyzed in this bibliometric review, covering the period from January 2011 to July 2025. The most prominent terms include \u0026ldquo;intersectionality,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;women,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;gender,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;race,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;health,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;discrimination,\u0026rdquo; reflecting the centrality of these concepts in scholarly debates. Other recurrent keywords, such as \u0026ldquo;experiences,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;identity,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;mental health,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;United States,\u0026rdquo; highlight both thematic concerns and the geographic concentration of research. Emerging terms like \u0026ldquo;environmental racism,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;stereotypes,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;public policy\u0026rdquo; appear less frequently but suggest expanding areas of inquiry within the field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ee illustrates the frequency of topics over the past ten years (2011 to 2025), highlighting the occurrence and distribution of different subjects throughout the analyzed period. This approach enables the identification of trends, emerging interests, and shifting research foci within the investigated field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study reveal a growing academic interest in intersectionality, race, and gender, particularly in the context of the social exclusion of Black women. The steady increase in publications since 2017 demonstrates the consolidation of intersectionality as a significant analytical framework in contemporary scholarship. However, the results also pointed important asymmetries in knowledge production, with the United States and other Western countries dominating the field, while contributions from the Global South remain limited. This pattern raises concerns about epistemic imbalances and the underrepresentation of perspectives from regions where the lived experiences of Black women are most acutely felt. Although intersectionality is increasingly referenced in scientific literature, few studies have quantitatively assessed how it is operationalized in scholarly outputs (Kozlowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As shown by Thelwall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), bibliometric indicators can reflect structural inequalities, often reinforcing institutional and gender biases. While some race-focused bibliometric studies exist in adjacent fields, such as Library and Information Science (Mongeon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), no study to date has applied a similar methodology to intersectionality with a global and race-gender exclusion lens.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGrowth of Scientific Production\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results indicate a clear upward trajectory in scientific production on intersectionality, particularly from 2017 onwards. This pattern suggests the consolidation of intersectionality as a central analytical framework across disciplines, especially in gender studies, psychology, and social sciences. The growing number of publications aligns with broader global debates on structural racism, gender inequality, and social justice, which gained prominence in both academic and political agendas during the last decade (UN, 2015). Previous studies corroborate this observation. For instance, Kozlowski et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a large-scale bibliometric analysis of intersectional identities in scientific publications, demonstrating a pronounced increase in intersectional approaches after 2015. Similarly, Br\u0026uuml;nig et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), in their systematic review of bioethical literature, identified a marked expansion of intersectional perspectives in health-related social science research. More recently, Ismail et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) mapped global trends in identity studies over the past decade, showing that interest in intersectionality has significantly intensified in recent years. Although the rise in publications demonstrates the growing legitimacy of the concept, it also raises questions about whether this expansion is accompanied by theoretical depth and methodological innovation, or whether it reflects a more superficial adoption of intersectionality as an academic trend.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGeographic, Institutional, and Intellectual Structures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results identified the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada as the most prolific countries, this dominance does not necessarily correspond to the regions where the realities of Black women are most acute. This epistemic imbalance reflects not only the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) but marginalizes perspectives from regions where the lived experiences of Black women are most pressing, such as those from Brazil, South Africa, and across the African continent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor instance, countries such as Brazil and South Africa, which have some of the largest Black populations and longstanding traditions of Black feminist scholarship, remain underrepresented in the bibliometric landscape. This imbalance reflects not only the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) but also the systemic undervaluation of intellectual contributions produced in the Global South. Voices like Awa Thiam (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e), whose pioneering work Black Sisters, Speak Out laid the foundations for African feminist thought; Amina Mama (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), who advanced pan-African feminist scholarship and created spaces for critical debate through Feminist Africa; Chioma Opara (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), who theorized femalism to foreground African women\u0026rsquo;s subjectivities; and Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), whose contemporary writing amplifies African women\u0026rsquo;s sexual narratives, remain underrepresented in the global bibliometric landscape. Similarly, in Latin America, L\u0026eacute;lia Gonzalez (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e) provided groundbreaking analyses of racism, sexism, and cultural identity, situating Black women\u0026rsquo;s experiences in Brazil within a broader critique of coloniality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFuture Directions and Social Relevance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this bibliometric review pointed not only the quantitative patterns of research on intersectionality, race, and gender, but also broader social implications that call for deeper exploration. The concentration of publications in North America and Europe reflects enduring asymmetries in global knowledge production, which risk reinforcing epistemic exclusion of voices from the Global South. Addressing these imbalances requires more inclusive academic collaborations that amplify perspectives from underrepresented regions, particularly where they lived realities of Black women are most visible and pressing. In addition to the central themes of sexism, discrimination, and intersectionality, the study identified several emerging areas of inquiry that are gradually gaining visibility. These include environmental racism, which highlights the disproportionate exposure of racialized communities to ecological risks; mental health, which connects systemic discrimination to psychosocial well-being; and public policy, which underscores the institutional dimensions of inequality and the potential role of state interventions in addressing structural injustices. The prominence of these themes underscores the complexity of overlapping forms of oppression and the necessity of moving beyond quantitative bibliometric mapping. While bibliometric methods are valuable for identifying intellectual structures and thematic clusters, future research should incorporate qualitative approaches, such as narrative analysis, critical discourse studies, and participatory methods, to capture the nuances of identity, agency, and resistance that cannot be fully conveyed through quantitative indicators alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne particularly relevant area for expansion is the study of environmental racism, which intersects with race, class, and gender in shaping disproportionate exposure of marginalized communities, especially Black women, to environmental risks and socioecological exclusion. Incorporating this dimension into future intersectional research could strengthen the dialogue between bibliometric evidence and critical social theory, bridging scientometric mapping with urgent debates on climate justice and structural inequality. The findings of this study not only map scholarly trends but also raise critical questions about epistemological justice. The underrepresentation of researchers and institutions from the Global South, especially those from regions with large Black populations such as Brazil and South Africa, reveals what may be termed a form of epistemological risk. This refers to the systemic marginalization of knowledge produced by non-Western, racialized, and gendered subjects, reinforcing what Quijano (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) calls the coloniality of knowledge, a structure that privileges Eurocentric epistemologies and delegitimizes alternative ways of knowing. Mignolo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) further argues that this epistemic hierarchy sustains global inequalities by limiting who can speak, what can be said, and how knowledge is validated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a policy and institutional perspective, this bibliometric mapping underscores the urgent need to expand funding, collaboration, and visibility for scholars in the Global South, particularly Black women. Despite having rich traditions of Black feminist thought, countries like Brazil and South Africa remain peripheral in intersectionality research. This exclusion is not accidental but reflects structural barriers including linguistic imperialism (with English as the dominant academic language), limited access to high-impact journals, and the underfunding of social sciences in postcolonial contexts (Santos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Ribeiro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Such exclusion also reveals the epistemic violence described by black feminist thinkers like L\u0026eacute;lia Gonzalez (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e) and bell hooks (1984), who denounce how the experiences and theoretical contributions of Black women are often erased or instrumentalized within dominant academic discourse. Addressing these gaps is thus not only a scholarly imperative, but an ethical and political one. As intersectionality gains ground as a critical framework for analyzing inequality, it is vital that the voices and lived experiences of those most affected, Black women in the Global South, be central to the knowledge produced. This bibliometric analysis serves both as a diagnostic and a call to action: to decolonize academic knowledge, foster inclusive scholarly networks, and advocate for epistemic justice in global science.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the underrepresentation of Black women researchers and the concentration of scientific output in a limited number of Western institutions, the following policy recommendations are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePromote the inclusion of Black women scholars in international research networks\u003c/b\u003e: Academic organizations, funding bodies, and journals should proactively include Black women, particularly from the Global South, in collaborative projects, editorial boards, peer review panels, and scientific events. This inclusion must go beyond symbolic representation, ensuring equitable decision-making power and access to publication opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDevelop funding calls specifically focused on racial intersectionality\u003c/b\u003e: National and international research agencies should launch calls for proposals that explicitly support research projects led by or centered on Black women and intersectional frameworks. These calls should include financial resources, mentorship structures, and publication support to reduce structural barriers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFoster South-South collaboration\u003c/b\u003e: One of the most effective strategies to overcome epistemic dependency on the Global North is to strengthen networks among researchers and institutions in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. This includes creating digital platforms, joint publications, and mobility programs that facilitate knowledge exchange and co-production of science from a Global South perspective.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInclude intersectionality in evaluation and policy instruments\u003c/b\u003e: Scientific evaluation systems, including those of universities, research agencies, and international rankings, should incorporate intersectionality as a criterion for assessing equity, diversity, and social impact. This is particularly relevant given recent findings that show the growing academic engagement with intersectionality as both a methodological and ethical imperative in science policy (Br\u0026uuml;nig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ismail et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLeverage bibliometric tools as advocacy instruments\u003c/b\u003e: The current study exemplifies how bibliometric methods can be used not only for academic analysis but also as tools for advocacy. By making visible the structural imbalances in knowledge production, these analyses support evidence-based reforms in academic policies and funding strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the bibliometric analysis relied exclusively on two major databases, \u003cem\u003eScopus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eWeb of Science\u003c/em\u003e. Although these are widely recognized and comprehensive, they do not index the entirety of the global scientific output, which may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies published in regional or non-indexed journals. Second, the search strategy was restricted to English-language terms, which may have introduced a linguistic bias and underestimated contributions from non-English-speaking contexts. Third, bibliometric methods, by their nature, emphasize quantitative patterns of scientific production, such as publication volume, citations, and keyword frequency, while not fully capturing the depth and nuances of theoretical debates or the quality of individual contributions. Finally, the dynamic nature of the field means that newly published works after the cut-off date (April 2025) were not included in this analysis, potentially limiting the timeliness of some findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study offers a comprehensive and critical overview of global academic production on intersectionality, race, and gender, with particular attention to the social exclusion and systemic discrimination of Black women. The findings demonstrate a significant and growing scholarly engagement with intersectionality, particularly after 2015, marked by the emergence of thematic clusters such as sexism, discrimination, environmental racism, and health disparities. The analysis reveals a strong geographic concentration of research in the United States and other Western countries, evidencing ongoing epistemological risks associated with the marginalization of Global South perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy identifying leading authors, institutions, journals, and collaboration networks, this study not only maps intellectual structures but also exposes the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) that shapes the field. The limited participation of researchers from countries with large Black populations, such as Brazil and South Africa, underscores the urgent need for epistemic justice and inclusive research practices that amplify underrepresented voices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond mapping trends, this study contributes to critical policy discussions by offering actionable recommendations: the inclusion of Black women scholars in international collaborations; targeted funding calls for intersectional research; and the integration of intersectionality as a criterion in research evaluation systems. These directions aim to strengthen South-South scientific cooperation, decolonize academic structures, and promote sustainable pathways for equity and transformation in global knowledge production.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData available\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric data analyzed in this study were obtained from the Scopus database. All data supporting the findings are available upon request or can be retrieved using the search strategies described in the Methods section. No proprietary or restricted datasets were used.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was not required for this study, as it is based exclusively on secondary data from publicly accessible bibliometric databases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This study did not involve human participants or personal data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contributions (anonymous version)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first author was responsible for conceptualizing and designing the study, conducting the bibliometric analysis, and drafting the manuscript. The second author contributed to data interpretation and visualization. The third author collaborated on the literature review and writing. The fourth author contributed to methodological validation and refinement of the analysis. The fifth author reviewed the final manuscript and provided critical feedback throughout the research process. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding Declaration (anonymous version)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research received partial financial support from the XXXXX Foundation \u0026ndash; University XXXX, through funding from Research Support Call No. XXXXX. A research scholarship was granted to one of the authors (XXXX) as part of an institutional research program. No other authors received external funding for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eL.O.N. and TMCD conceptualized and designed the study, conducted the bibliometric analysis, and wrote the main manuscript text. L.A.M. contributed to data interpretation and prepared the visualizations. M.A.F. and D.G. conducted the literature review and contributed to manuscript writing. T.M.C.D. validated the methodology and refined the analysis. D.G. critically reviewed the final version and provided feedback throughout the research process. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe bibliometric data analyzed in this study were obtained from the Scopus database. All data supporting the findings are available upon request or can be retrieved using the search strategies described in the Methods section. No proprietary or restricted datasets were used.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBr\u0026uuml;nig M, Tarzian AJ, Schicktanz S (2024) How is the intersectionality approach applied in bioethics? A systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 25(1):57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01057-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12910-024-01057-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollins PH (2015) Intersectionality\u0026rsquo;s definitional dilemmas. Ann Rev Sociol 41(1):1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollins PH (2019) Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press, Durham\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Legal Forum 1989(1):139\u0026ndash;167\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi Y, Cao L, Tarrence J, Zheng H, Qian Z (2025) Identifying the social mechanisms for multiracial-monoracial health disparities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12:1208. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05370-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/s41599-025-05370-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis A (1981) Women, race, \u0026amp; class. Random House, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonzalez L (1983) Racismo e sexismo na cultura brasileira. In: Silva LAM (ed) Movimentos sociais urbanos, minorias e outros estudos. ANPOCS, Bras\u0026iacute;lia, pp 223\u0026ndash;244. [in Portuguese]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehooks b (1984) Feminist theory: From margin to center. South End, Boston\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsmail A, Munsi H, Yusuf AM, Hijjang P (2025) Mapping one decade of identity studies: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global trends and scholarly impact. Social Sci 14(2):92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14020092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/socsci14020092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKilomba G (2016) Plantation memories: Episodes of everyday racism. Unrast, M\u0026uuml;nster\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKozlowski D, Larivi\u0026egrave;re V, Sugimoto CR, Monroe White T (2022) Intersectional identities and the science of science. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 119(6):e2113067119. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.2113067119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKozlowski D, Larivi\u0026egrave;re V, Sugimoto CR, Monroe White T (2022) Intersectional identities and the science of science. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e 119(6):e2113067119. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113067119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.2113067119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMama A (1995) Beyond the masks: Race, gender and subjectivity. Routledge, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMignolo WD (2009) Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory Cult Soc 26(7\u0026ndash;8):159\u0026ndash;181. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409349275\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0263276409349275\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoradi B (2020) Mapping the travels of intersectionality scholarship: A citation network analysis. J Couns Psychol 67(5):583\u0026ndash;597. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000422\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/cou0000422\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMongeon P, Smith E, Haustein S (2021) A bibliometric analysis of race-related research in Library and Information Science. Quant Sci Stud 2(3):900\u0026ndash;924. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29173/cais1219\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29173/cais1219\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOpara C (2004) Her mother\u0026rsquo;s daughter: The African writer as woman. Belpot, Port Harcourt\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuijano A (2000) Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. Int Sociol 15(2):215\u0026ndash;232. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0268580900015002005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRibeiro D (2018) Quem tem medo do feminismo negro? Companhia das Letras, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo. [in Portuguese]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantos BS (2007) Para al\u0026eacute;m do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Novos Estudos CEBRAP 79:71\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-33002007000300004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S0101-33002007000300004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSekyiamah ND (2021) The sex lives of African women: Self-discovery, freedom, and healing. Dialogue Books, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThiam A (1978) Black sisters, speak out: Feminism and oppression in black Africa. Pluto, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThelwall M (2023) Do bibliometrics introduce gender, institutional or national bias? A systematic analysis. Res Policy 52(7):104786. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104829\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.respol.2023.104829\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations (2015) \u003cem\u003eSustainable Development Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A et al (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/sdata.2016.18\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"intersectionality, bibliometric analysis, race, gender, social exclusion, Black women, collaboration networks","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7679011/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7679011/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global academic production on intersectionality, race, and gender, with a specific focus on the social exclusion and systemic discrimination faced by Black women. Using data from Scopus and Web of Science, 324 publications from 2011 to 2025 were analyzed, covering diverse disciplines such as sociology, gender studies, public health, and psychology. The analysis identified leading authors, institutions, journals, collaboration networks, and thematic trends, revealing the dominance of Western countries\u0026mdash;particularly the United States\u0026mdash;in shaping the field. Key thematic clusters included sexism, discrimination, environmental racism, and health disparities, alongside an increasing engagement with intersectionality as a critical analytical framework. Despite the observed growth, the results expose persistent epistemic asymmetries, with limited representation of scholars from the Global South, including regions with significant Black populations. This underrepresentation reflects broader structures of epistemological risk and the coloniality of knowledge, calling for inclusive research policies and collaborative practices that center marginalized voices. The study contributes not only to academic mapping but also offers policy-oriented recommendations to promote equity in knowledge production, including targeted funding for intersectional research and integration of intersectionality into evaluation metrics. By employing R and the Bibliometrix package, this research positions bibliometric tools as both analytical and advocacy instruments, showing the need for more diverse, decolonial, and interdisciplinary approaches to intersectionality in global scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Intersectionality, aging, and invisibility: a global review of black women’s experiences in academic research","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-12 18:21:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7679011/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-27T05:42:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-12T02:17:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"43742063633818658033053116642284939390","date":"2026-01-21T19:43:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"196682538824287826771797385192743756667","date":"2026-01-20T18:37:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-25T21:02:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"55549176275612439399982376681865657024","date":"2025-11-02T18:55:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-02T18:13:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-11T15:29:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-08T16:08:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-30T09:29:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-09-22T10:46:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"28f1c51d-46c8-4085-ab49-509fd1cd378e","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[{"id":57633001,"name":"Humanities/Health humanities"},{"id":57633002,"name":"Humanities/Literature"},{"id":57633003,"name":"Social science/Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-27T05:55:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-12 18:21:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7679011","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7679011","identity":"rs-7679011","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}