Passing the microphone: broadening perspectives by amplifying underrepresented voices

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in medical education journals: An evaluation of editorial board composition

PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE

As editorial boards (EBs) of medical education journals (MEJs) hold substantial control over framing current medical education scholarship, we aimed to evaluate representation of women as well as geographic and socioeconomic diversity on EBs of these journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In our cross-sectional study, Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score (CEBDS) was used to evaluate diversity at gender, geographic region, and country income level. Websites of MEJs were screened for relevant information. Job titles were categorized into 3 editorial roles and data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.

RESULTS

Out of 42 MEJs, 19 journals (45.2%) were published from the Global South. Among 1219 editors, 57.5% were men. Out of 46 editors in chief (EICs), 34.7% were women, and 60.9% were based in high income countries. No EIC belonged to low-income country. The proportion of female advisory board members was found to be positively correlated with the presence of a female EIC. Moreover, 2 journals achieved the maximum CEBDS. All editors belonged to the same World Bank income group and geographic region for 12 and 8 journals respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to allow a truly global perspective in medical education to prevail, diversity and inclusivity on these journals become important parameters to address. Thus, promoting policies centered on improving diversity in all aspects should become a top priority.

How should I determine author order for this paper?

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors conclude their short series of articles on academic authorship by addressing the question of how to determine author order, including taking into account power dynamics that may be at play.

Faster, higher, stronger - together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

INTRODUCTION

Medical education and medical education research are growing industries that have become increasingly globalised. Recognition of the colonial foundations of medical education has led to a growing focus on issues of equity, absence and marginalisation. One area of absence that has been underexplored is that of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of five top medical education journals to determine which countries were absent and which countries were represented in prestigious first and last authorship positions.

METHODS

Web of Science was searched for all articles and reviews published between 2012 and 2021 within Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Teacher, and BMC Medical Education. Country of origin was identified for first and last author of each publication, and the number of publications originating from each country was counted.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed a dominance of first and last authors from five countries: USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands and Australia. Authors from these five countries had first or last authored 70% of publications. Of the 195 countries in the world, 43% (approximately 83) were not represented by a single publication. There was an increase in the percentage of publications from outside of these five countries from 23% in 2012 to 40% in 2021.

CONCLUSION

The dominance of wealthy nations within spaces that claim to be international is a finding that requires attention. We draw on analogies from modern Olympic sport and our own collaborative research process to show how academic publishing continues to be a colonised space that advantages those from wealthy and English-speaking countries.

Hyperglobalist, sceptical, and transformationalist perspectives on globalization in medical education

PURPOSE

Globalisation has been hotly debated in recent decades and has seemingly had a profound impact on medical education. This review synthesises the medical education literature using key perspectives from globalisation theory by Holton (Making globalisation).

METHODS

Holton (Making globalisation) recognised three key perspectives in globalisation theory-hyperglobalist, sceptical, and transformationalist. This article critically reviews the literature on globalisation in the field of medical education using this theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Hyperglobalist and sceptical perspectives dominated early periods of medical education literature on globalisation, projecting it either as a mainly positive or mainly negative force, respectively. Most forecasts grounded in these perspectives have not materialised in medical education policy and practice. Since 2010, the volume of scholarship about globalisation has increased and has been predominantly transformationalist in perspective, recognising a reality that has both positive and negative consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

The medical education literature has mirrored the broader social science literature, in moving over time from hyperglobalist and sceptical positions, towards a 'third wave' of globalisation thinking that is transformationalist. Medical education practitioners and policymakers should be mindful of these perspectives and trends as they navigate the opportunities and challenges presented by globalisation.

Editorial diversity in medical education journals

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the field of medical education has sought to amplify the voices of those from traditionally marginalised groups and medical education journals have sought to become more accessible and diverse. This study sought to examine the gender and geographical representation of editors and editorial board members in medical education journals.

METHODS

Information about individual editors and editorial board members of 10 medical education journals was retrieved from their websites in January 2021, including their gender and the country in which they were based. Countries were categorised according to World Bank Income Classification and World Bank Geographical Regions. We then calculated the Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score for each journal.

FINDINGS

Of 488 editors and editorial board members, 283 (58.0%) were male, 452 (92.6%) were based in high-income countries and 322 (66.0%) were from the four countries with greatest representation (the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada).

DISCUSSION

The composition of medical education journals' editorial leadership teams remains dominated by males and those from higher income and Western countries. Strikingly, little change has taken place since this was last examined 17 years ago despite the field becoming apparently more globalised. As medical education strives to become a more inclusive and diverse discipline, developing policies to create more globally representative editorial leadership teams should now be an urgent priority.