In an academic book on the history of philosophy I've noticed most of it's selectors and commentators were from the West, although the language of the publication wasn't Western.
This was even the case for passages on Islamic and Chinese philosophy. However, a very detailed section on Indian philosophy was the work of an Indian scholar from India.
On another occasion I found the discovery of a tractate, purportedly, by Zeno of Elea in Ancient Armenian first got published in Modern Armenian; Five years later it was published in Russian and subsequently reviewed in a renowned German magazine, but an English translation wouldn't come out until 50 years later.
What do historians generally hold of their colleagues working and discussing sources not in English, Spanish, French or German? If a scholar found an important manuscript in a regional language of his country and reviewed it in his native tongue, how long would it take for this discovery to reach European and American scholars researching his region? Will they rely on his review or attempt to get a translation of the respective manuscripts? Will the respective third world scholar be given the credit he deserves? Or: what if he just made an interesting piece of a analysis on his country's history - Will it be noticed elsewhere in the world?
Are there any balkanized regions in historiography where native and international scholars hold one another in a very low regard? Do non-Western historians generally get translated and published in the West? It certainly happens the other way round and there is a market for non-Western novelists. What with historians?
Western historians of the Ottoman Empire (including myself) read and make use of Turkish publications quite frequently. I'd say there's not a huge gap between the two sides in terms of who is reading what material, though there may be differences in methodological approach (and many originally English books are translated into Turkish). It's another matter for the other languages of the former Ottoman Empire. Historians in this field already have to learn so many languages that they are all going to have deficiencies somewhere. So Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc. historians writing in their own languages haven't received nearly as much attention as Turkish historians have, except from scholars who focus specifically on those countries.
The reason for this is that specialists on the Ottoman Empire have to know Turkish in order to engage in research in the first place, so naturally they're going to have no problem reading material written by Turkish historians. Where they will have a problem is reading material from third parties - so there's almost no communication at all between, say, American Ottomanist historians writing in English, and Russian Ottomanist historians writing in Russian. It's why having common languages for international publications is so useful - for instance Hungarian historians of the Ottomans will occasionally publish important works in English or German for non-Hungarians to be able to read.
Do non-Western historians generally get translated and published in the West?
Typically only if the work has an appeal for non-specialists too, since specialists can read the original language anyway. Thus Halil İnalcık's The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600 got translated, since it's a general history which (at the time) would make for a good book for people who had never read anything on the Ottomans, whereas a more detailed monograph would not get translated - no market for it, and most people who would want to read it already can.