Written by Dr. Daniel Bak
Publish or perish. This common saying is used in academic circles, to describe, for better or worse, the preeminence of one’s publication record to determine the success of one’s academic or scientific career. While the question of how to improve retention rates for minority and underrepresented students and faculty members has justifiably fallen on the shoulders of academic institutions, the outsized importance of publication in academia suggests that publishers also have a role to play in correcting this imbalance. Until recently, examination of equity and inclusion in academic publishing was largely ignored, with the assumption that the peer review process was meritorious above all else. Recent data has laid to rest the idea that there is no bias in the academic journal submission and peer review process. A study out of the University of Pennsylvania found that authors of color in five neuroscience journals were consistently under cited, attributed to the preferential citation of white authors by their peers [1]. Another recent study from 2014-2018 by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) found organizational bias against female authors at each stage of the publishing process [2]. Collection of this data allowed RSC to develop and implement a plan for the reduction of gender bias. Regrettably, these sorts of data collection studies are far from the norm for scientific publishers, leading some researchers to strike out on their own, collating data for themselves. Others have vocally criticized publishers for dragging their feet and have called for journals to immediately collect and report demographic data. A recent feature (Nature, 602, 566-570 (2022)) [3] highlights both initial and ongoing efforts by publishers to track diversity metrics across their journals.
At the forefront of this effort following the George Floyd protests, the American Chemical Society (ACS) published a Diversity Data Report in late 2021 [4]. This report summarizes demographic information collected voluntarily from authors, reviewers, and editors at ACS journals between February and September of 2021. The results broadly can be subdivided into 3 areas where actionable steps can be taken to address and correct biases and improve equity in authorship:
Equal Access to Resources and Fair Peer Review for Authors – While the rate at which authors submit articles to journals is largely a reflection of academic diversity, disparity in article acceptance rates can also arise from either bias in the editorial and peer review process or as a result of unequal access of authors to resources and education tools related to successful article submission. At ACS journals, article acceptance rates as a proportion of articles submitted are significantly higher for white authors as compared to Black, LatinX, African, and South(east) Asian authors.
Diversity of the Editorial Team – Editors and editorial boards play an important role in article acceptance and represent the first hurdle for publication. For ACS journals in 2020, 68% of editors were male, 52% were from the US or Canada, and 55% were white, all significant overrepresentations compared to corresponding authors demographics.
Un-biased Peer Review Process – Reviewers receive scant training or oversight in identifying and correcting their biases, which may disadvantage women, persons of color, and foreign authors. In ACS journals, reviewers are over-represented by white men from the US/Canada and Europe, and, while only 24% of submitted article are from corresponding authors who self-describe as white, over 40% of reviewers are white. The same trend exists for geographical location, with reviewers from the US/Canada and Europe significantly overrepresented.
The ACS has subsequently used the data generated from their demographic survey to implement of a number of initiatives aimed at improving the diversity of the editorial and reviewer pools, diminishing bias in the review process, and improving equity in article acceptance. A non-exhaustive list of these steps include:
Training for editors to recognize and interrupt bias in the review process.
Including the diversity of journal contributors as a metric of journal/editor success.
Improvements in editor diversity through unbiased nomination and selection processes and with expanded editorial opportunities.
Development of resources and educational tool for use by editors when selecting potential reviewers.
Improving and expanding on bias training for reviewers.
Development of educational resources that give all authors equal access to information pertaining to all aspects of article generation, submission, and journal communication.
As evident by the ACS’s initial work, “data is the currency of policy change” [3]. Unfortunately, most journals do not collect demographic data. This is in part due to the international nature of publishing and the difficulties in succinctly obtaining information, where culture understanding of race and ethnicity, as well as sensitivities to racial classification differ by country and geographic region. As such, the best option appears to invite authors and reviewers to self-report demographic data during the manuscript submission and peer-review process. To this end the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has brought together 53 publishers, representing 15,000+ journals, in a “joint commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing”. This group recently voted to accept a set of standardized questions for self-reported diversity data collection [5]. Publishers and journals that have signed onto this agreement will be encouraged to start using these questions in the coming months and collecting data as a first step to improving their own commitments to diversity and inclusion. It is likely that, as authors, you will soon be asked to voluntarily provide your own demographic data when submitting a journal article. Whether or not you choose to do so, the data provided by authors and reviewers will guide forthcoming changes in scientific publishing.
[1] Bertolo, M.A. et al. Preprint at BioRxiv (2020).
[2] Day, A.E. Corbett, P. and Boyle, J. Chem. Sci. 11, 2277-2301 (2020).
[3] Else, H. and Perkel, J.M. Nature 602, 566-570 (2022).
[4] ACS Publication (2021) Diversity Data Report ACS Axial (2021).
[5] Joint commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing (2022) Diversity data collection in scholarly publishing. Royal Society of Chemistry
Comments