Editorial boards (EBs) can shape global health research by determining what is published, which methods are legitimised, and whose knowledge is prioritised. The persistent underrepresentation of scholars from minoritised backgrounds raises concerns about which researchers and types of knowledge may be systemically disregarded. This review consolidates all evidence on EB diversity, highlighting how power and representation are distributed in global health publishing. Five databases were searched from inception to 30 July 2025, with no language restrictions. Eligible studies included primary, peer-reviewed, quantitative studies examining diversity among EB members in global health journals. Of the 266,669 records screened, 226 specifically addressed EBs, analysing a median of 15 (IQR: 5.0, 41.0) journals and 859 (IQR: 374.0, 2754.0) editors. Most studies examined gender (n = 213) and geographic representation (n = 53), with limited assessment of race and ethnicity (n = 16), academic rank (n = 12), sexual orientation (n = 3), and disability (n = 1). Despite incremental gains, EB members and editors-in-chief were predominantly men based in high-income countries, particularly the US. A supplementary analysis of 603 studies on global health authorship found similar patterns. The composition of EBs reflects and may perpetuate systemic epistemic inequities. Addressing this requires structural reform beyond improving representation to ensure meaningful inclusion, accountability, and equitable governance.