Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors

Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing

Editors of scientific journals make central decisions in the publication process. Information peripheral to the content of a manuscript such as the editor's professional circle and authors' publishing record may influence these decisions. This constitutes reputation whose role in the publication process remains poorly investigated. Analyzing three decades of publications of 33 Nature journals in physical and life sciences, we show that reputation is tied with publications at the level of editors. The establishment of a non-financial conflict of interest policy and the journals' impact factor were associated with changes in the number of publications of editors' former co-authors and authors with a publishing record in Nature journals. We suggest changes at the author and journal levels to mitigate the role of reputation in the publication process.

Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers

Citations are widely considered in scientists' evaluation. As such, scientists may be incentivized to inflate their citation counts. While previous literature has examined self-citations and citation cartels, it remains unclear whether scientists can purchase citations. Here, we compile a dataset of ~1.6 million profiles on Google Scholar to examine instances of citation fraud on the platform. We survey faculty at highly-ranked universities, and confirm that Google Scholar is widely used when evaluating scientists. We then engage with a citation-boosting service, and manage to purchase 50 citations while assuming the identity of a fictional author. Taken as a whole, our findings bring to light new forms of citation manipulation, and emphasize the need to look beyond citation counts.

Gender Distribution of Course Material Authors in a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Program

The gender distribution of authors in the health sciences literature has been well documented. We explored whether this distribution persists among library course reserves for a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program, as course reserves are veterinary faculty members' own teaching materials. Such a bibliometric analysis of course reserves provides a novel method of examining curricular materials. In the Fall of 2022, researchers collected the library's current course reserve metadata, including fields, such as author names and material types. Binary gender was determined based on a variety of sources: traditional naming conventions, gender presentation in photographs, pronouns in signatures, and biographies. Of the 167 exported authors, 162 were included for further analysis in SPSS. Course reserves' authors were analyzed by collaborators and media type. The dichotomous gender distribution of first authors was 76% male/ 24% female. Female first authors were more likely to have collaborators than male first authors (39% vs 26%). When collaborations did occur, first and second authors had the same gender at a significantly higher rate. Exploring author gender across material type, we found that generally, the first author gender ratio remained 3 males to every female. Contextualizing these results in the framework of contemporary health sciences literature, we found that the gender disparities in course reserves to be unsurprising, while still disappointing.

The Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex

Research focused on health disparities-whether relating to one's race/ethnicity, gender expression, sexual orientation, citizenship status, income level, etc.-constitutes a large, generative, and highly profitable portion of scholarship in academic, clinical, and government settings. Health disparities research is expressed as a means of bringing greater attention to, and ultimately addressing via evidence-based implementation science, acts of devaluation and oppression that have continually contributed to these inequities. Philosophies underlying health disparities research's expansive and growing presence mirror the formal logic and ethos of the Military Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex. The "Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex," operationalized in this article, represents a novel mutation and extension of these complexes, primarily being enacted through these three mechanisms: 1) The construction and maintenance of beliefs, behaviors, and policies in healthcare, and society more broadly, that create and sustain disadvantages in minority health; 2) the creation and funding of research positions that inordinately provide non-minoritized people and those without relevant lived experiences the ability to study health disparities as "health equity tourists"; and 3) the production of health disparities research that, due to factors one and two, is incapable of fully addressing the disparities. In this piece, these and other core elements of the Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex, and the research bubble that it has produced, are discussed. Additionally, strategies for reducing the footprint and impact of the Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex and better facilitating opportunities for meaningful implementation in the field are presented.

Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals

Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.

Journals must expand access to peer review data

Empirical studies on peer review bias are primarily conducted by people from privileged groups and with affiliations with the journals studied. Data access is one major barrier to conducting peer review research. Accordingly, we propose pathways to broaden access to peer review data to people from more diverse backgrounds.

Psychology needs more diversity at the level of Editor-in-Chief

There are racial, gender, and geographical disparities for editors-in-chief in psychology. This is a problem, and many counter arguments are not persuasive. It is time for the field – and in the power of individuals - to implement suitable measures to make change happen.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.

Women in cardiovascular imaging: a call for action to address ongoing challenges

AIMS

The EACVI Scientific Initiatives Committee and the EACVI women's taskforce conducted a global survey to evaluate the barriers faced by women in cardiovascular imaging (WICVi).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a prospective international survey, we assessed the barriers faced at work by WICVi. Three hundred fourteen participants from 53 countries responded. The majority were married (77%) and had children (68%), but most reported no flexibility in their work schedule during their pregnancy or after their maternity leave. More than half of the women reported experiencing unconscious bias (68%), verbal harassment (59%), conscious bias (51%), anxiety (70%), lack of motivation (60%), imposter syndrome (54%), and burnout (61%) at work. Furthermore, one in five respondents had experienced sexual harassment, although this was rarely reported formally. The majority reported availability of mentorship (73%), which was mostly rated as 'good' or 'very good'. While more than two-thirds of respondents (69%) now reported being well trained and qualified to take on leadership roles in their departments, only one-third had been afforded that opportunity. Despite the issues highlighted by this survey, >80% of the participating WICVi would still choose cardiovascular imaging if they could restart their career.

CONCLUSION

The survey has highlighted important issues faced by WICVi. While progress has been made in areas such as mentorship and training, other issues including bullying, bias, and sexual harassment are still widely prevalent requiring urgent action by the global cardiovascular imaging community to collectively address and resolve these challenges.

Self-perceived competences by future chemistry teachers in Brazil

In this work we have compared the self-perceived competences of future chemistry teachers who are pursuing teacher training courses in all the regions of Brazil taking the following factors into account: sex, age and Brazilian region origin. A quantitative exploration was adopted and the data were collected using the Self-Perceived Competences of Teachers in Initial Chemistry Training (SPCTICT) instrument, composed of 21 items. An exploratory factor analysis enabled grouping the items into three factors: (a) self-perception of technical competences (knowledge), (b) Self-perception of competences linked to specific aspects (know-how) and, finally, (c) self-perception of generic competences (knowing how to act or how to behave). The results demonstrate statistically significant differences among men and women on the self-perception of their own competences regarding knowledge construction in chemistry.

Counterpoint: Preprints and the Future of Scientific Publishing-In Favor of Relevance

Peer-reviewed journals provide an invaluable but inadequate vehicle for scientific communication. Preprints are now an essential complement to peer-reviewed publications. Eschewing preprints will slow scientific progress and reduce the public health impact of epidemiologic research. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted long-standing limitations of the peer-review process. Preprint servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, served as crucial venues to rapidly disseminate research and provide detailed backup to sound-bite science that is often communicated through the popular press or social media. The major criticisms of preprints arise from an unjustified optimism about peer review. Peer review provides highly imperfect sorting and curation of research and only modest improvements in research conduct or presentation for most individual papers. The advantages of peer review come at the expense of months to years of delay in sharing research methods or results. For time-sensitive evidence, these delays can lead to important missteps and ill-advised policies. Even with research that is not intrinsically urgent, preprints expedite debate, expand engagement, and accelerate progress. The risk that poor-quality papers will have undue influence because they are posted on a preprint server is low. If epidemiology aims to deliver evidence relevant for public health, we need to embrace strategic uses of preprint servers.

Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?

Male researchers dominate scientific production in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, potential mechanisms to avoid this gender imbalance remain poorly explored in STEM, including ecology and evolution areas. In the last decades, changes in the peer-review process towards double-anonymized (DA) have increased among ecology and evolution (EcoEvo) journals. Using comprehensive data on articles from 18 selected EcoEvo journals with an impact factor >1, we tested the effect of the DA peer-review process in female-leading (i.e., first and senior authors) articles. We tested whether the representation of female-leading authors differs between double and single-anonymized (SA) peer-reviewed journals. Also, we tested if the adoption of the DA by previous SA journals has increased the representativeness of female-leading authors over time. We found that publications led by female authors did not differ between DA and SA journals. Moreover, female-leading articles did not increase after changes from SA to DA peer-review. Tackling female underrepresentation in science is a complex task requiring many interventions. Still, our results highlight that adopting the DA peer-review system alone could be insufficient in fostering gender equality in EcoEvo scientific publications. Ecologists and evolutionists understand how diversity is important to ecosystems' resilience in facing environmental changes. The question remaining is: why is it so difficult to promote and keep this "diversity" in addition to equity and inclusion in the academic environment? We thus argue that all scientists, mentors, and research centers must be engaged in promoting solutions to gender bias by fostering diversity, inclusion, and affirmative measures.