I recently received a rejection comment from a leading international journal questioning whether the authors had sufficient “authority” to write a perspective on an emerging field in breast oncology. What made the comment particularly striking was that the author group included a former President of Breast Surgery International, along with surgeons with established contributions to breast surgery, education, training, and global academic practice. A strong scientific criticism of a perspective is entirely appropriate and welcome. But journals should critique the evidence, reasoning and manuscript, not the perceived “authority,” standing or entitlement of authors to discuss a scientific topic. For authors working in LMICs, such wording is especially concerning. Academic debate should be open to ideas and evidence, regardless of geography or institutional pedigree. We always respect the editorial decision; we only hope the language of comments reflects the inclusiveness and scholarly standards expected of an international journal. Global surgery cannot advance if “authority” is implicitly defined by geography, institutional pedigree, or personal procedural volume rather than scholarship. @Dhananjayasha19 @BreastSurgeonGA @sanjitgrwl #GlobalSurgery #PeerReview #AcademicMedicine #ResearchEquity #LMIC #SurgicalOncology @surgery_breast @ASBrS @DrRahulMJindal1 @RantingSid @juliomayol @Raghavanvidya2 @LiangRhea @TomVargheseJr @me4_so