The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration

Ten simple rules for pushing boundaries of inclusion at academic events

Inclusion at academic events is facing increased scrutiny as the communities these events serve raise their expectations for who can practically attend. Active efforts in recent years to bring more diversity to academic events have brought progress and created momentum. However, we must reflect on these efforts and determine which underrepresented groups are being disadvantaged. Inclusion at academic events is important to ensure diversity of discourse and opinion, to help build networks, and to avoid academic siloing. All of these contribute to the development of a robust and resilient academic field. We have developed these Ten Simple Rules both to amplify the voices that have been speaking out and to celebrate the progress of many Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity practices that continue to drive the organisation of academic events. The Rules aim to raise awareness as well as provide actionable suggestions and tools to support these initiatives further. This aims to support academic organisations such as the Deep Learning Indaba, Neuromatch Academy, the IBRO-Simons Computational Neuroscience Imbizo, Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), Arabs in Neuroscience, FAIRPoints, and OLS (formerly Open Life Science). This article is a call to action for organisers to reevaluate the impact and reach of their inclusive practices.

Seven Strategies to Integrate Equity within Translational Research in Neurology

The rapidly accelerating translation of biomedical advances is leading to revolutionary therapies that are often inaccessible to historically marginalized populations. We identified and synthesized recent guidelines and statements to propose 7 strategies to integrate equity within translational research in neurology: (1) learn history; (2) learn about upstream forces; (3) diversify and liberate; (4) change narratives and adopt best communication practices; (5) study social drivers of health and lived experiences; (6) leverage health technologies; and (7) build, sustain, and lead culturally humble teams. We propose that equity should be a major goal of translational research, equally important as safety and efficacy. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:432-441.

Virtual BUILD Research Collaboratory: A biomedical data science training using innovative pedagogy to address structures of racism and inequitable stress for undergraduates of color

OBJECTIVE

The unprecedented events of 2020 required a pivot in scientific training to better prepare the biomedical research workforce to address global pandemics, structural racism, and social inequities that devastate human health individually and erode it collectively. Furthermore, this pivot had to be accomplished in the virtual environment given the nation-wide lockdown.

METHODS

These needs and context led to leveraging of the San Francisco Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (SF BUILD) theories of change to innovate a Virtual BUILD Research Collaboratory (VBRC). The purpose of VBRC was to train Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) students to apply their unique perspectives to biomedical research. These training activities were evaluated using a pre-post survey design that included both validated and new psychosocial scales. A new scale was piloted to measure culturally relevant pedagogy.

RESULTS

VBRC scholars increased science identity on two items: thinking of myself as a scientist (+1point, p = 0.006) and belonging to a community of scientists (+1point, p = 0.069). Overall, scholars perceived stress also decreased over VBRC (-2.35 points, p = 0.02). Post VBRC, scholars had high agency scores (μ = 11.02, Md = 12, range = 6-12, σ = 1.62) and cultural humility scores (μ = 22.11, Md = 23, range = 12-24, σ = 2.71). No notable race/ethnic differences were found in any measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, our innovative approach to data science training for BIPOC in unprecedented times shows promise for better preparing the workforce critically needed to address the fundamental gaps in knowledge at the intersection of public health, structural racism, and biomedical sciences.

A scientometric analysis of fairness in health AI literature

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are central components of today's medical environment. The fairness of AI, i.e. the ability of AI to be free from bias, has repeatedly come into question. This study investigates the diversity of members of academia whose scholarship poses questions about the fairness of AI. The articles that combine the topics of fairness, artificial intelligence, and medicine were selected from Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Embase using keywords. Eligibility and data extraction from the articles were done manually and cross-checked by another author for accuracy. Articles were selected for further analysis, cleaned, and organized in Microsoft Excel; spatial diagrams were generated using Public Tableau. Additional graphs were generated using Matplotlib and Seaborn. Linear and logistic regressions were conducted using Python to measure the relationship between funding status, number of citations, and the gender demographics of the authorship team. We identified 375 eligible publications, including research and review articles concerning AI and fairness in healthcare. Analysis of the bibliographic data revealed that there is an overrepresentation of authors that are white, male, and are from high-income countries, especially in the roles of first and last author. Additionally, analysis showed that papers whose authors are based in higher-income countries were more likely to be cited more often and published in higher impact journals. These findings highlight the lack of diversity among the authors in the AI fairness community whose work gains the largest readership, potentially compromising the very impartiality that the AI fairness community is working towards.

Universal pictures: A lithophane codex helps teenagers with blindness visualize nanoscopic systems

People with blindness have limited access to the high-resolution graphical data and imagery of science. Here, a lithophane codex is reported. Its pages display tactile and optical readouts for universal visualization of data by persons with or without eyesight. Prototype codices illustrated microscopy of butterfly chitin-from N-acetylglucosamine monomer to fibril, scale, and whole insect-and were given to high schoolers from the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Lithophane graphics of Fischer-Spier esterification reactions and electron micrographs of biological cells were also 3D-printed, along with x-ray structures of proteins (as millimeter-scale 3D models). Students with blindness could visualize (describe, recall, distinguish) these systems-for the first time-at the same resolution as sighted peers (average accuracy = 88%). Tactile visualization occurred alongside laboratory training, synthesis, and mentoring by chemists with blindness, resulting in increased student interest and sense of belonging in science.

Evolution of a self-renewing, participant-centered workshop series in BMB assessment

We present as a case study the evolution of a series of participant-centered workshops designed to meet a need in the life sciences education community-the incorporation of best practices in the assessment of student learning. Initially, the ICABL (Inclusive Community for the Assessment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology/BMB Learning) project arose from a grass-roots effort to develop material for a national exam in biochemistry and molecular biology. ICABL has since evolved into a community of practice in which participants themselves-through extensive peer review and reflection-become integral stakeholders in the workshops. To examine this evolution, this case study begins with a pilot workshop supported by seed funding and thoughtful programmatic assessment, the results of which informed evidence-based changes that, in turn, led to an improved experience for the community. Using participant response data, the case study also reveals critical features for successful workshops, including participant-centered activities and the value of frequent peer review of participants' products. Furthermore, we outline a train-the-trainer model for creating a self-renewing community by bringing new perspectives and voices into an existing core leadership team. This case study, then, offers a blueprint for building a thriving, evolving community of practice that not only serves the needs of individual scientist-educators as they seek to enhance student learning, but also provides a pathway for elevating members to positions of leadership.

Enhancing the Pipeline for a Diverse Workforce

The lack of diversity in the physician workforce is a multifactorial problem. From elementary school through college, students from minority or socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds achieve despite attending underresourced schools, facing low expectations from peers and teachers, and overcoming unconscious biases among decision makers. These and other obstacles lead to significant attrition of talent by the time cohorts prepare to apply to medical school. Pipeline initiatives that inspire and prepare applicants from groups underrepresented in medicine are needed to swell the ranks of diverse individuals entering our profession.

Preserving the Future of Infectious Diseases: Why We Must Address the Decline in Compensation for Clinicians and Researchers

Infectious diseases (ID) physicians play a pivotal role in patient care and public health, yet concerns are mounting about their under-compensation compared with other medical specialties. This trend sees ID physicians, including new graduates, receiving lower remuneration than their general and hospital medicine peers, despite their significant contributions. The persistent disparity in compensation has been identified as a key factor behind the declining interest in the ID specialty among medical students and residents, potentially threatening patient care quality, research advancement, and diversity within the ID workforce. This viewpoint underscores the urgent need for the ID community to rally behind the Infectious Diseases Society of America in advocating for fair compensation for ID physicians and researchers. While focusing on wellness and work-life balance is vital, it is critical to address compensation, a significant source of distress for physicians. Failure to confront the issue of under-compensation promptly may jeopardize the future growth and sustainability of the ID specialty.

The impact of founder personalities on startup success

Startup companies solve many of today's most challenging problems, such as the decarbonisation of the economy or the development of novel life-saving vaccines. Startups are a vital source of innovation, yet the most innovative are also the least likely to survive. The probability of success of startups has been shown to relate to several firm-level factors such as industry, location and the economy of the day. Still, attention has increasingly considered internal factors relating to the firm's founding team, including their previous experiences and failures, their centrality in a global network of other founders and investors, as well as the team's size. The effects of founders' personalities on the success of new ventures are, however, mainly unknown. Here, we show that founder personality traits are a significant feature of a firm's ultimate success. We draw upon detailed data about the success of a large-scale global sample of startups (n = 21,187). We find that the Big Five personality traits of startup founders across 30 dimensions significantly differ from that of the population at large. Key personality facets that distinguish successful entrepreneurs include a preference for variety, novelty and starting new things (openness to adventure), like being the centre of attention (lower levels of modesty) and being exuberant (higher activity levels). We do not find one 'Founder-type' personality; instead, six different personality types appear. Our results also demonstrate the benefits of larger, personality-diverse teams in startups, which show an increased likelihood of success. The findings emphasise the role of the diversity of personality types as a novel dimension of team diversity that influences performance and success.

The room where it happens: addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion in National Clinical Trials Network clinical trial leadership

Many multicenter randomized clinical trials in oncology are conducted through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), an organization consisting of 5 cooperative groups. These groups are made up of multidisciplinary investigators who work collaboratively to conduct trials that test novel therapies and establish best practice for cancer care. Unfortunately, disparities in clinical trial leadership are evident. To examine the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion across the NCTN, an independent NCTN Task Force for Diversity in Gastrointestinal Oncology was established in 2021, the efforts of which serve as the platform for this commentary. The task force sought to assess existing data on demographics and policies across NCTN groups. Differences in infrastructure and policies were identified across groups as well as a general lack of data regarding the composition of group membership and leadership. In the context of growing momentum around diversity, equity, and inclusion in cancer research, the National Cancer Institute established the Equity and Inclusion Program, which is working to establish benchmark data regarding diversity of representation within the NCTN groups. Pending these data, additional efforts are recommended to address diversity within the NCTN, including standardizing membership, leadership, and publication processes; ensuring diversity of representation across scientific and steering committees; and providing mentorship and training opportunities for women and individuals from underrepresented groups. Intentional and focused efforts are necessary to ensure diversity in clinical trial leadership and to encourage design of trials that are inclusive and representative of the broad population of patients with cancer in the United States.

The nature of science: The fundamental role of natural history in ecology, evolution, conservation, and education

There is a contemporary trend in many major research institutions to de-emphasize the importance of natural history education in favor of theoretical, laboratory, or simulation-based research programs. This may take the form of removing biodiversity and field courses from the curriculum and the sometimes subtle maligning of natural history research as a "lesser" branch of science. Additional threats include massive funding cuts to natural history museums and the maintenance of their collections, the extirpation of taxonomists across disciplines, and a critical under-appreciation of the role that natural history data (and other forms of observational data, including Indigenous knowledge) play in the scientific process. In this paper, we demonstrate that natural history knowledge is integral to any competitive science program through a comprehensive review of the ways in which they continue to shape modern theory and the public perception of science. We do so by reviewing how natural history research has guided the disciplines of ecology, evolution, and conservation and how natural history data are crucial for effective education programs and public policy. We underscore these insights with contemporary case studies, including: how understanding the dynamics of evolutionary radiation relies on natural history data; methods for extracting novel data from museum specimens; insights provided by multi-decade natural history programs; and how natural history is the most logical venue for creating an informed and scientifically literate society. We conclude with recommendations aimed at students, university faculty, and administrators for integrating and supporting natural history in their mandates. Fundamentally, we are all interested in understanding the natural world, but we can often fall into the habit of abstracting our research away from its natural contexts and complexities. Doing so risks losing sight of entire vistas of new questions and insights in favor of an over-emphasis on simulated or overly controlled studies.

Postdoctoral researchers' perspectives on working conditions and equal opportunities in German academia

Postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) are an essential component of the scientific workforce in German universities and research institutions and play a vital role in advancing knowledge and innovation. However, the experiences of postdocs and other early career researchers (ECRs) indicate that working conditions pose a significant challenge to the pursuit of a long-term research career in Germany-particularly for international scientists and those from marginalized groups. We examine how unstable working conditions as well as insufficient structural support for equal opportunities and diversity are significant obstacles for the career development of ECRs in German academia. We discuss these issues with the aid of an extensive survey recently conducted and published by PostdocNet, a target-group network representing the interests of postdocs across Germany's Max Planck Society. The survey drew responses from 659 postdoctoral researchers working at the Max Planck Society and represents one of the few datasets of postdoctoral researchers' perspectives in Germany. Building on these findings, we suggest actions at governmental, institutional, and individual levels to improve the working conditions of postdoctoral researchers in Germany.

A new tool for evaluating health equity in academic journals; the Diversity Factor

Current methods to evaluate a journal's impact rely on the downstream citation mapping used to generate the Impact Factor. This approach is a fragile metric prone to being skewed by outlier values and does not speak to a researcher's contribution to furthering health outcomes for all populations. Therefore, we propose the implementation of a Diversity Factor to fulfill this need and supplement the current metrics. It is composed of four key elements: dataset properties, author country, author gender and departmental affiliation. Due to the significance of each individual element, they should be assessed independently of each other as opposed to being combined into a simplified score to be optimized. Herein, we discuss the necessity of such metrics, provide a framework to build upon, evaluate the current landscape through the lens of each key element and publish the findings on a freely available website that enables further evaluation. The OpenAlex database was used to extract the metadata of all papers published from 2000 until August 2022, and Natural language processing was used to identify individual elements. Features were then displayed individually on a static dashboard developed using TableauPublic, which is available at www.equitablescience.com. In total, 130,721 papers were identified from 7,462 journals where significant underrepresentation of LMIC and Female authors was demonstrated. These findings are pervasive and show no positive correlation with the Journal's Impact Factor. The systematic collection of the Diversity Factor concept would allow for more detailed analysis, highlight gaps in knowledge, and reflect confidence in the translation of related research. Conversion of this metric to an active pipeline would account for the fact that how we define those most at risk will change over time and quantify responses to particular initiatives. Therefore, continuous measurement of outcomes across groups and those investigating those outcomes will never lose importance. Moving forward, we encourage further revision and improvement by diverse author groups in order to better refine this concept.

Team science: A syllabus for success on big projects

Interdisciplinary teams are on the rise as scientists attempt to address complex environmental issues. While the benefits of team science approaches are clear, researchers often struggle with its implementation, particularly for new team members. The challenges of large projects often weigh on the most vulnerable members of a team: trainees, including undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral researchers. Trainees on big projects have to navigate their role on the team, with learning project policies, procedures, and goals, all while also training in key scientific tasks such as co-authoring papers. To address these challenges, we created and participated in a project-specific, graduate-level team science course. The purposes of this course were to: (1) introduce students to the goals of the project, (2) build trainees' understanding of how big projects operate, and (3) allow trainees to explore how their research interests dovetailed with the overall project. Additionally, trainees received training regarding: (1) diversity, equity & inclusion, (2) giving and receiving feedback, and (3) effective communication. Onboarding through the team science course cultivated psychological safety and a collaborative student community across disciplines and institutions. Thus, we recommend a team science course for onboarding students to big projects to help students establish the skills necessary for collaborative research. Project-based team science classes can benefit student advancement, enhance the productivity of the project, and accelerate the discovery of solutions to ecological issues by building community, establishing a shared project vocabulary, and building a workforce with collaborative skills to better answer ecological research questions.

Antiracist Structural Intervention at the Emory University Institutional Review Board

Although racial and ethnic categories are social constructs without inherent biologic or genetic meaning, race and ethnicity impact health outcomes through racism. The use of racial categories in biomedical research often misattributes the cause of health inequities to genetic and inherent biological differences rather than to racism. Improving research practices around race and ethnicity is an urgent priority and requires education as well as structural change. We describe an evidence-based intervention for an institutional review board (IRB). Our IRB now requires all biomedical study protocols to define racial and ethnic classifications they plan to use, to state whether they are describing or explaining differences between groups, and to provide justification for any use of racial or ethnic group variables as covariates. This antiracist IRB intervention is an example of how research institutions can help ensure the scientific validity of studies and avoid the unscientific reification of race and ethnicity as inherently biological or genetic concepts.

The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of non-native English speakers in science. This study also proposes potential solutions that can be implemented today by individuals, institutions, journals, funders, and conferences. Please see the Supporting information files (S2-S6 Text) for Alternative Language Abstracts and Figs 5 and 6.

SciSciNet: A large-scale open data lake for the science of science research

The science of science has attracted growing research interests, partly due to the increasing availability of large-scale datasets capturing the innerworkings of science. These datasets, and the numerous linkages among them, enable researchers to ask a range of fascinating questions about how science works and where innovation occurs. Yet as datasets grow, it becomes increasingly difficult to track available sources and linkages across datasets. Here we present SciSciNet, a large-scale open data lake for the science of science research, covering over 134M scientific publications and millions of external linkages to funding and public uses. We offer detailed documentation of pre-processing steps and analytical choices in constructing the data lake. We further supplement the data lake by computing frequently used measures in the literature, illustrating how researchers may contribute collectively to enriching the data lake. Overall, this data lake serves as an initial but useful resource for the field, by lowering the barrier to entry, reducing duplication of efforts in data processing and measurements, improving the robustness and replicability of empirical claims, and broadening the diversity and representation of ideas in the field.

Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science

The advent of large-scale datasets that trace the workings of science has encouraged researchers from many different disciplinary backgrounds to turn scientific methods into science itself, cultivating a rapidly expanding 'science of science'. This Review considers this growing, multidisciplinary literature through the lens of data, measurement and empirical methods. We discuss the purposes, strengths and limitations of major empirical approaches, seeking to increase understanding of the field's diverse methodologies and expand researchers' toolkits. Overall, new empirical developments provide enormous capacity to test traditional beliefs and conceptual frameworks about science, discover factors associated with scientific productivity, predict scientific outcomes and design policies that facilitate scientific progress.

Gendered conflict in the human family

Sexual conflict is a thriving area of animal behaviour research. Yet parallel research in the evolutionary human sciences remains underdeveloped and has become mired by controversy. In this special collection, we aim to invigorate the study of fitness-relevant conflicts between women and men, advocating for three synergistic research priorities. First, we argue that a commitment to diversity is required to innovate the field, achieve ethical research practice, and foster fruitful dialogue with neighbouring social sciences. Accordingly, we have prioritised issues of diversity as editors, aiming to stimulate new connections and perspectives. Second, we call for greater recognition that human sex/gender roles and accompanying conflict behaviours are both subject to natural selection and culturally determined. This motivates our shift in terminology from sexual to gendered conflict when addressing human behaviour, countering stubborn tendencies to essentialise differences between women and men and directing attention to the role of cultural practices, normative sanctions and social learning in structuring conflict battlegrounds. Finally, we draw attention to contemporary policy concerns, including the wellbeing consequences of marriage practices and the gendered implications of market integration. Focus on these themes, combined with attendance to the dangers of ethnocentrism, promises to inform culturally sensitive interventions promoting gender equality worldwide.

Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape

In this article, we investigate the role of gender in collaboration patterns by analyzing gender-based homophily-the tendency for researchers to co-author with individuals of the same gender. We develop and apply novel methodology to the corpus of JSTOR articles, a broad scholarly landscape, which we analyze at various levels of granularity. Most notably, for a precise analysis of gender homophily, we develop methodology which explicitly accounts for the fact that the data comprises heterogeneous intellectual communities and that not all authorships are exchangeable. In particular, we distinguish three phenomena which may affect the distribution of observed gender homophily in collaborations: a structural component that is due to demographics and non-gendered authorship norms of a scholarly community, a compositional component which is driven by varying gender representation across sub-disciplines and time, and a behavioral component which we define as the remainder of observed gender homophily after its structural and compositional components have been taken into account. Using minimal modeling assumptions, the methodology we develop allows us to test for behavioral homophily. We find that statistically significant behavioral homophily can be detected across the JSTOR corpus and show that this finding is robust to missing gender indicators in our data. In a secondary analysis, we show that the proportion of women representation in a field is positively associated with the probability of finding statistically significant behavioral homophily.

Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations

Disparities continue to pose major challenges in various aspects of science. One such aspect is editorial board composition, which has been shown to exhibit racial and geographical disparities. However, the literature on this subject lacks longitudinal studies quantifying the degree to which the racial composition of editors reflects that of scientists. Other aspects that may exhibit racial disparities include the time spent between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript and the number of citations a paper receives relative to textually similar papers, but these have not been studied to date. To fill this gap, we compile a dataset of 1,000,000 papers published between 2001 and 2020 by six publishers, while identifying the handling editor of each paper. Using this dataset, we show that most countries in Asia, Africa, and South America (where the majority of the population is ethnically non-White) have fewer editors than would be expected based on their share of authorship. Focusing on US-based scientists reveals Black as the most underrepresented race. In terms of acceptance delay, we find, again, that papers from Asia, Africa, and South America spend more time compared to other papers published in the same journal and the same year. Regression analysis of US-based papers reveals that Black authors suffer from the greatest delay. Finally, by analyzing citation rates of US-based papers, we find that Black and Hispanic scientists receive significantly fewer citations compared to White ones doing similar research. Taken together, these findings highlight significant challenges facing non-White scientists.

Team Science: Advancing Women and Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color on the Pathway of Conducting Clinical Research

Introduction:

Innovative discovery begins with diverse perspectives; research teams should harness this model. Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and women are underrepresented as researchers. Team science leverages collaborative and cross-disciplinary approaches to diversify the research workforce, and introduces academic (and non-academic) faculty with limited research exposure/experience to clinical research.

Methods:

In 2020, two Black women academic physicians implemented an academic collaborative – COVID-19 Characteristics, Readmissions, Outcomes, and Social Determinants of Health (CROSS) – to investigate COVID-19 health inequities, with intentional recruitment of BIPOC and women. The 37 CROSS team members were of diverse races, ethnicities, sex, specialties, and disciplines, and represented eight hospitals. Team members were electronically surveyed to determine their interest, desired activities, and level of participation in research activities; concurrently, self-identified demographics (including race, ethnicity, sex, and language(s) spoken) were obtained.

Results:

All team members completed the survey: 78.4% (n = 29) were BIPOC and 78.4% (n = 29) were women. Team members spoke 18 languages (including English). Academic medical ranks included Assistant Professor (32.4%; n = 12), Associate Professor (16.2%; n = 6), and Full Professor (2.7%; n = 1). Each member identified desired activities (data collection, data analytics, manuscript development, abstract development/poster presentation, serving as a consultant) and the percentage of time they intended to allocate to each. Between June 2020 and February 2023, the team produced five original peer-reviewed manuscripts (including this article); five members served as first or senior authors. Twenty-one abstracts were presented at local conferences, and 10 at national and regional conferences. Five members achieved academic promotion, and team members were awarded three intramural grants resulting directly from team collaborations.

Conclusion:

Intentional recruitment and assessment of team members’ desired levels of participation in an integrated clinical research team is an effective strategy to engage BIPOC and women. The CROSS Collaborative is a model for diversity and inclusion in team science and clinical research.

Critical Perspectives on Expanding Racial/Ethnic Diversity in the HIV Research Workforce: Comorbidities and Mentoring

HIV-related comorbidities in underrepresented minority populations are reframed to include the co-occurring problems of systemic and structural barriers, within the mentoring context as a buffer and as action-oriented. This framework is discussed to improve racial and ethnic minority diversity in the research workforce from the perspectives of HIV comorbidities and mentoring. An integrated and coordinated approach to HIV-related comorbidities and inequities may be helpful when combined with research on the social-structural contributions as drivers to diversify the research workforce. We emphasize how these key research issues (a) provide a platform for training and retraining a highly motivated, diverse workforce and (b) facilitate the empowerment of these trained individuals to conduct rigorous scientific research on social-structural factors to mitigate the effects of these comorbidities. We conclude that a diverse research workforce is necessary but insufficient for improving training-related outcomes or reducing comorbidity effects. Additional considerations are warranted that include systemic approaches and changes at the structural and institutional levels.

Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors

Scientific editors shape the content of academic journals and set standards for their fields. Yet, the degree to which the gender makeup of editors reflects that of scientists, and the rate at which editors publish in their own journals, are not entirely understood. Here, we use algorithmic tools to infer the gender of 81,000 editors serving more than 1,000 journals and 15 disciplines over five decades. Only 26% of authors in our dataset are women, and we find even fewer women among editors (14%) and editors-in-chief (8%). Career length explains the gender gap among editors, but not editors-in-chief. Moreover, by analysing the publication records of 20,000 editors, we find that 12% publish at least one-fifth, and 6% publish at least one-third, of their papers in the journal they edit. Editors-in-chief tend to self-publish at a higher rate. Finally, compared with women, men have a higher increase in the rate at which they publish in a journal soon after becoming its editor.

DEIA is essential to advance the goals of translational science: Perspectives from NCATS

The National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) seeks to improve upon the translational process to advance research and treatment across all diseases and conditions and bring these interventions to all who need them. Addressing the racial/ethnic health disparities and health inequities that persist in screening, diagnosis, treatment, and health outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality) is central to NCATS' mission to deliver more interventions to all people more quickly. Working toward this goal will require enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the translational workforce and in research conducted across the translational continuum, to support health equity. This paper discusses how aspects of DEIA are integral to the mission of translational science (TS). It describes recent NIH and NCATS efforts to advance DEIA in the TS workforce and in the research we support. Additionally, NCATS is developing approaches to apply a lens of DEIA in its activities and research - with relevance to the activities of the TS community - and will elucidate these approaches through related examples of NCATS-led, partnered, and supported activities, working toward the Center's goal of bringing more treatments to all people more quickly.

Higher-order rich-club phenomenon in collaborative research grant networks

Modern scientific work, including writing papers and submitting research grant proposals, increasingly involves researchers from different institutions. In grant collaborations, it is known that institutions involved in many collaborations tend to densely collaborate with each other, forming rich clubs. Here we investigate higher-order rich-club phenomena in networks of collaborative research grants among institutions and their associations with research impact. Using publicly available data from the National Science Foundation in the US, we construct a bipartite network of institutions and collaborative grants, which distinguishes among the collaboration with different numbers of institutions. By extending the concept and algorithms of the rich club for dyadic networks to the case of bipartite networks, we find rich clubs both in the entire bipartite network and the bipartite subnetwork induced by the collaborative grants involving a given number of institutions up to five. We also find that the collaborative grants within rich clubs tend to be more impactful in a per-dollar sense than the control. Our results highlight advantages of collaborative grants among the institutions in the rich clubs.

Diversity in Academic Ophthalmology: Disparities and Opportunities from Medical School to Practice

INTRODUCTION

Compared to the United States population as a whole, physicians are more likely to identify as men, identify as Asian or non-hispanic White, and be raised in wealthier households. Racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic representation in ophthalmology is often blamed on the pipeline of matriculants.

METHODS

This review collects recent data from the US census, AAMC, and primary literature on gender, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity from medical school to ophthalmology practice.

RESULTS

Data from the medical and ophthalmology literature shows that medical students are less diverse than medical school applicants, ophthalmology residencies are less diverse than graduating medical students, and ophthalmology departments are less diverse than those of most other specialties.

DISCUSSION

At each level, there are limitations in representation beyond the pipeline of medical school applicants or medical students applying to ophthalmology. There are many practical steps the field can take at each level of training to move the specialty toward more equitable representation.

Beijing's central role in global artificial intelligence research

Nations worldwide are mobilizing to harness the power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) given its massive potential to shape global competitiveness over the coming decades. Using a dataset of 2.2 million AI papers, we study inter-city citations, collaborations, and talent migrations to uncover dependencies between Eastern and Western cities worldwide. Beijing emerges as a clear outlier, as it has been the most impactful city since 2007, the most productive since 2002, and the one housing the largest number of AI scientists since 1995. Our analysis also reveals that Western cities cite each other far more frequently than expected by chance, East-East collaborations are far more common than East-West or West-West collaborations, and migration of AI scientists mostly takes place from one Eastern city to another. We then propose a measure that quantifies each city's role in bridging East and West. Beijing's role surpasses that of all other cities combined, making it the central gateway through which knowledge and talent flow from one side to the other. We also track the center of mass of AI research by weighing each city's geographic location by its impact, productivity, and AI workforce. The center of mass has moved thousands of kilometers eastward over the past three decades, with Beijing's pull increasing each year. These findings highlight the eastward shift in the tides of global AI research, and the growing role of the Chinese capital as a hub connecting researchers across the globe.

Members of the majority need to actively promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging

The responsibility for promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) too often falls on scientists from minority groups. Here, I provide a list of potential strategies that members of the majority can easily do to step up and get involved in DEIB.

The inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity of researchers and societal impact

With the increasing importance of interdisciplinary research, some studies have focused on the role of reference diversity by analysing reference lists of published papers. However, the relationship between the knowledge diversity of collaborating team members and research performance has been overlooked. In this study, we measured knowledge diversity through the disciplinary attributes of collaborating authors and research performance (understood as societal impact) through altmetric data. The major findings are: (1) The relationship between interdisciplinary collaboration diversity and societal impact is not a simple linear one, showing an inverted U-shaped pattern; and (2) As the number of collaborative disciplines increases, the marginal effects diminish or even become outweighed by the costs, showing a predominance of negative influences. Hence, diversity in interdisciplinary collaboration does not always have a positive impact. Research collaborations need to take into account the cost issues associated with the diversity of member disciplines.

The influence of Chinese scholars on global research

The rise of China as a scientific research superpower has been frequently discussed in media and literature. However, past analyses are usually based on the geographical database and they ignore how the millions of emigrated Chinese students, who are now being considered the major research workforce in many countries, affect their academic outputs. Here we quantitatively analyze the contribution of Chinese scholars in physical science around the globe by their publications in a country's papers from 2010 to 2021 as well as their citations. Contrary to common perception, we find that increasing the number of Chinese scholars does not correlate with the net publication growth or decline in their host countries before the Chinese population exceeds a critical value. On the other hand, increasing Chinese authors in a paper improves its citations. The phenomena, though anomalous, are observed in many subfields of physics across the globe. Our analysis suggests that although Chinese scholars do not change the perceived publication capabilities of many countries but may have reshaped their research culture as well as workforce distributions. The results would be valuable for R&D, higher education, and immigration policymakers.

National Institutes of Health diversity supplements: Perspectives from administrative insiders

BACKGROUND

The NIH Diversity Administrative Supplement is a funding mechanism that provides support for diverse early-stage researchers. There is limited guidance on how to apply for these awards.

PURPOSE

We describe perspectives of NIH program/diversity officers and university research administrators offering recommendations for diversity supplement submission.

METHODS

This article is the product of a working group exploring diversity in research. Nursing faculty from an R2 Historically Black College and University and an R1 research intensive university conducted stakeholder interviews with NIH program/diversity officers and university research administrators. We used content analysis to categorize respondents' recommendations.

FINDINGS

Recommendations centered on harmonizing the applicant with the program announcement, communication with program/diversity officers, mentor/mentee relationship, scientific plan, and systematic institutional approaches to the diversity supplement.

DISCUSSION

Successful strategies in submitting diversity supplements will facilitate inclusion of diverse researchers in NIH-sponsored programs. Systematic approaches are needed to support development of diverse voices to enhance the scientific community.

Ten simple rules for running a summer research program

To continue to advance the field of computational biology and fill the constantly growing need for new trainees who are well positioned for success, immersive summer research experiences have proven to be effective in preparing students to navigate the challenges that lay ahead in becoming future computational biologists. Here, we describe 10 simple rules for planning, offering, running, and improving a summer research program in computational biology that supports students in honing technical competencies for success in research and developing skills to become successful scientific professionals.

Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion

Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms with important distinguishing features. Moreover, funding-by-lottery is sometimes portrayed as an alternative to traditional methods of peer review when peer review is still used within funding-by-lottery approaches. This obscures a proper analysis of the (hypothetical and actual) variants of funding-by-lottery and important differences amongst them. The goal of this article is to provide a preliminary taxonomy of funding-by-lottery variants and evaluate how the existing evidence on peer review might lend differentiated support for variants of funding-by-lottery. Moreover, I point to gaps in the literature on peer review that must be addressed in future research. I conclude by building off of the work of Avin in moving toward a more holistic evaluation of funding-by-lottery. Specifically, I consider implications funding-by-lottery variants may have regarding trust and social responsibility.

Making outdoor field experiences more inclusive for the LGBTQ+ community

Outdoor field experiences have not historically been welcoming to marginalized communities. Recent calls to address the lack of diversity in outdoor field experiences have accelerated efforts to make programs more inclusive for multiple marginalized identity groups. Despite these efforts, many cultural and procedural changes are still needed to support the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning (LGBTQ+) community when participating in outdoor field experiences. Here we use results from a survey of leaders from 17 outdoor programs and expertise gained from our own experiences cultivating inclusion in field programs to outline strategies that outdoor field experience providers can use to foster greater support for the LGBTQ+ community. We define key terminology to increase awareness of LGBTQ+ identities and pronouns. We then highlight important actions that field experience leaders can take to make their internships, education programs, and trips more accessible and inclusive for the LGBTQ+ community. We use results from our survey of outdoor programs to highlight practices currently being used to support LGBTQ+ inclusion and accessibility and synthesize how current practice aligns with our overall recommendations. The LGBTQ+ community deserves to be welcomed into outdoor field experiences and to participate fully as students, researchers, educators, recreators, and professionals.

Outcomes of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute K12 program in emergency care research: 7-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up for clinician-scientist training programs is sparse. We describe the outcomes of clinician-scientist scholars in the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) K12 program in emergency care research up to 8.7 years after matriculation in the program.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of faculty clinician-scientist scholars enrolled in a NHLBI K12 research training program at 6 sites across the US, with median follow-up 7.7 years (range 5.7-8.7 years) from the date of matriculation. Scholars completed electronic surveys in 2017 and 2019, with the 2019 survey collecting information for their current work setting, percent time for research, and grant funding from all sources. We used NIH RePorter and online resources to verify federal grants through March 2021. The primary outcome was a funded career development award (CDA) or research project grant (RPG) where the scholar was principal investigator. We included funding from all federal sources and national foundations.

RESULTS

There were 43 scholars, including 16 (37%) women. Over the follow-up period, 32 (74%) received an individual CDA or RPG, with a median of 36 months (range 9-83 months) after entering the program. Of the 43 scholars, 23 (54%) received a CDA and 22 (51%) received an RPG, 7 (16%) of which were R01s. Of the 23 scholars who received a CDA, 13 (56%) subsequently had an RPG funded. Time to CDA or RPG did not differ by sex (women vs. men log-rank test p = 0.27) or specialty training (emergency medicine versus other specialties, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

After 7 years of follow-up for this NHLBI K12 emergency care research training program, three quarters of clinician-scientist scholars had obtained CDA or RPG funding, with no notable differences by sex or clinical training.

Diversity in forensic sciences: Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) representation in different medicolegal fields in the United States

The benefits of a diverse and inclusive working environment are well documented. This study examined forensic science literature, demographic data reported from professional organizations, and demographic surveys to compile information regarding racial and ethnic diversity within different subdisciplines of forensic science. Results showed that practitioners self-identified as Black or Hispanic were underrepresented in scientific fields closely related to forensic science. Moreover, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) students were underrepresented at the undergraduate level, despite increasing college enrollments. This lack of representation may have consequences on knowledge production and innovation. By recognizing the current status of diversity in forensic science, this study is the first step toward mitigating the trend of underrepresentation. We encourage professional organizations to be transparent about the diversity in their membership and provide actual practitioner demographic statistics. These data are beneficial to studying the effects of underrepresentation and developing effective strategies to improve representation.

Impact of gender on the formation and outcome of formal mentoring relationships in the life sciences

Despite increasing representation in graduate training programs, a disproportionate number of women leave academic research without obtaining an independent position that enables them to train the next generation of academic researchers. To understand factors underlying this trend, we analyzed formal PhD and postdoctoral mentoring relationships in the life sciences during the years 2000 to 2020. Student and mentor gender are both associated with differences in rates of student’s continuation to positions that allow formal academic mentorship. Although trainees of women mentors are less likely to take on positions as academic mentors than trainees of men mentors, this effect is reduced substantially after controlling for several measurements of mentor status. Thus, the effect of mentor gender can be explained at least partially by gender disparities in social and financial resources available to mentors. Because trainees and mentors tend to be of the same gender, this association between mentor gender and academic continuation disproportionately impacts women trainees. On average, gender homophily in graduate training is unrelated to mentor status. A notable exception to this trend is the special case of scientists having been granted an outstanding distinction, evidenced by membership in the National Academy of Sciences, being a grantee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or having been awarded the Nobel Prize. This group of mentors trains men graduate students at higher rates than their most successful colleagues. These results suggest that, in addition to other factors that limit career choices for women trainees, gender inequities in mentors’ access to resources and prestige contribute to women’s attrition from independent research positions.

Does the gender of academic mentors impact the careers of their trainees? In the life sciences, graduate and postdoctoral trainees of women mentors are less likely to continue on to positions as academic mentors than trainees of men. This study finds that gender inequality in mentors’ access to resources contributes to this disparity.

Perceived barriers to career progression in the headache field: A global web-based cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed.

RESULTS

In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.