The author is not just claiming that the majority publishing are of an ethnic group. They are claiming that there is some substantive form of thought called "whiteness" that is being preserved (since even minority voices are forced to adopt it).

The author is slippery on defining this properly, and the one example they give of this happening to them is them being forced to be "objective" by removing a presumably non-relevant section on US racial politics from an article.

The problem with this of course is that the author is trying to equate a certain sort of methodological approach with racial traits, and is then claiming that 'objectivity" as seen in this view is thus "white". The fact that many nonwhite scholars and scientists and so on all aspire to this sort of "objectivity" is to be ignored or problematized- they're assimilating into "whiteness", whether they see it that way or not. What we have here is the intellectualized version of calling the kid who succeeds academically a person who is "acting white".

There is of course far less controversy that there are modes of thinking that arose or were popularized in the post-Enlightenment world -the deliberate association with "whiteness" is the odd thing. It seems like an almost deliberate -and presumptuous- attempt to alienate these modes from non-white scholars who use them and to define non-white thinkers in opposition to them (if a white person were doing this 50 years ago we would just call it racist and exclusionary). I don't know who gave them the authority to do that. Do I get to go to Indonesia and declare their Islamic studies "Arab" and thus permanently at odds with the society? Or to tell the Japanese that liberal democracy will never be theirs due to American influence? And who is to say that non-white people share the author's position on subjectivity? For many race is not the most relevant lens subjectivity is passed through.

The rest of the time the author basically seems to exploit the ambiguity built into the very use (or misuse) of "white" in this sense: the mere fact that countries that are largely or overwhelmingly white (especially a few generations ago which would explain a lag in the representation of non-white scholars in today's publications*) is a sign of the dominance of "whiteness".

But, of course, were black scholars to show up and to hold to some of the same methodological constraints as their white colleagues the author would just call this "whiteness" anyway.

* The author of course never provides any context for their lament that Asian scholars are underrepresented by tallying the number of Asian scholars and putting it against the number of Asians in the total population pool, because that would make sense.