WHAT WAS THE EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE?: Representation gaps in medical education publishing are widely recognized and may be attributed to epistemic injustice, defined as 'wrong done to someone in their capacity as a knower.' Although peer review is meant to ensure 'rigor,' some quality assurance practices can inadvertently silence entire populations and impede understanding of a field's foundational concepts. WHAT WAS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION?: To honor our journal's commitment to equitable knowledge production, a diversity, equity, and inclusion working group at HOW WAS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION IMPLEMENTED?: We implemented structural peer review reform at WHAT LESSONS LEARNED ARE RELEVANT TO A WIDER AUDIENCE?: Since implementation, our journal has received feedback expressing appreciation for humanity and personal connection in our peer review, and we have observed increased publications from geographically marginalized authors. We believe our outcomes result from respecting marginalized authors' authority to pursue their own interests, concerns, and successes with respect to knowledge production. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?: We believe our approach can be adopted by other peer-reviewed journals. We invite application and critique of our framework to advance community development in creating relevant, accessible, and equitable knowledge production for all people.