Academic publishing is one of several forces that shape what is recognized as global health knowledge. The peer review process is meant to ensure rigor and quality, yet it can reproduce political and structural inequalities, especially when research challenges dominant narratives. For researchers from marginalized and colonized communities, these dynamics determine whether their language, identity, and lived realities are permitted in scholarly spaces. When political, historical, and socio-legal context is minimized or replaced with state-sanctioned labels, the result is not neutrality but the silencing of essential truths that directly shape health and mental health. This Comment examines how editorial and peer review practices operate as gatekeeping mechanisms that privilege dominant geopolitical narratives and marginalize Indigenous and decolonial perspectives. Drawing on a recent case where a peer-reviewed article, recommended for publication, faced subsequent editorial demands to replace politically accurate terminology referring to Palestinians, we show how language policing functions as epistemic control. These are not isolated incidents: global publishing norms pressure scholars toward state-sanctioned labels and "neutral" frames, sidelining colonial and political determinants of health. In global health, that pressure produces an evidence base that overlooks the sociopolitical conditions; occupation, systemic violence, legal segregation, displacement, that shape exposure, access, care pathways, and outcomes, including mental health. It produces an appearance of neutrality that is methodologically incomplete and ethically fragile, with downstream consequences for research agendas, funding priorities, program design, and accountability. Confronting the politics of knowledge production in global health requires structural change, not just diversity statements. Safeguarding researchers' right to represent their communities in their own terms and embedding sociopolitical realities into analysis are essential. Without these changes, global health will continue to reproduce the inequalities it seeks to reduce, failing to generate knowledge that is genuinely global, representative, and just.

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not Applicable. Consent for publication: Not Applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.