Peer review determines which scholarship is legitimized; however, review biases often disadvantage scholarship that diverges from the norm. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) lacks a systemic inquiry into how such biases affect underrepresented Global South (GS) scholarship. To address this critical gap, we conducted four focus groups with 16 HCI researchers studying the GS. Participants reported experiencing reviews that confined them to development research, dismissed their theoretical contributions, and questioned situated knowledge from GS communities. Both as authors and reviewers, participants reported experiencing the epistemic burden of over-explaining why knowledge from GS communities matters. Further, they noted being tokenized as ``cultural experts'' when assigned to review papers and pointed out that the hidden curriculum of writing HCI papers often gatekeeps GS scholarship. Using epistemic oppression as a lens, we discuss how review practices marginalize GS scholarship and outline actionable strategies for nurturing equitable epistemological evaluation of HCI scholarship.

翻译：同行评审决定了何种学术成果获得认可；然而，评审偏见常使偏离主流的研究处于不利地位。人机交互领域缺乏对这类偏见如何影响代表性不足的全球南方学术成果的系统性探究。为填补这一关键空白，我们与16位研究全球南方议题的人机交互学者开展了四场焦点小组讨论。参与者报告称，他们经历的评审常将其研究局限于发展议题、否定其理论贡献，并质疑来自全球南方社区的情境化知识。无论是作为作者还是审稿人，参与者都表示承受着过度解释“为何来自全球南方社区的知识具有重要意义”的认知负担。此外，他们指出在受邀审稿时常被符号化为“文化专家”，并揭示人机交互论文写作的隐性规则往往将全球南方研究拒之门外。本文以认知压迫为理论视角，探讨评审实践如何边缘化全球南方学术成果，并提出促进人机交互领域公平认知评价的具体策略。