Abstract
This bibliometric analysis examines epistemic power relations and hierarchies in Central Asian conflict studies. Grounded in critiques of epistemic injustice and decolonial theory, it explores the structural asymmetries that shape the field: whose research is cited, who collaborates with whom, and which concepts dominate scholarly debates. Analyzing 115 publications (1991–2024) using VOSviewer, the study maps co-authorship networks, citation patterns, and thematic clusters not as neutral data, but as traces of power relations, revealing testimonial injustice in citation practices and the coloniality of knowledge in theoretical dependencies. The findings confirm a persistent core–periphery dynamic: Western institutions dominate authorship and citation networks, while regionally grounded scholarship remains marginalized and intra-regional collaboration is extremely limited. By providing an empirical diagnostic of epistemic inequalities, this study contributes to debates on epistemic injustice and the decolonization of area studies.