Editorial diversity in medical education journals

Medical Teacher's equity diversity inclusion policy

Medical Teacher is a leading international journal in health professions education. The Journal recognizes its responsibility to publish papers that reflect the breadth of topics that meet the needs of its readers around the globe including contributions from countries underrepresented in the health professions education arena. This paper sets out the Journal's policy with regard to Equity Diversity Inclusion (EDI) and the steps to be taken to implement the policy in practice.

Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals

INTRODUCTION

Global South researchers struggle to publish in Global North journals, including journals dedicated to research on health professions education (HPE). As a consequence, Western perspectives and values dominate the international academic landscape of HPE. This study sought to understand Global South researchers' motivations and experiences of publishing in Global North journals.

METHODS

This study used a hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 11 authors from 6 Global South countries. Interview transcripts were analysed through a process of familiarisation, identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, developing exhaustive descriptions, producing a fundamental structure and seeking verification.

RESULTS

Participants described being motivated by local institutional expectations, to improve reputation, to meet Global North perceptions of quality and to draw attention to their Global South context. Participants described experiences where their work was deemed irrelevant to Global North audiences, they were unable to interpret rejections and had learnt to play the publishing game by attending to both local and global imperatives. These motivations and experiences revealed several practical, academic and transformational tensions that Global South authors faced.

CONCLUSION

The tensions and negotiations encountered by Global South authors who publish in HPE journals reflect a 'border consciousness' whereby authors must shift consciousness, or become 'shapeshifters', inhabiting two or more worlds as they cross borders between the Global South and Global North conventions. There is an added burden and risk in performing this shapeshifting, as Global South authors stand astride the borders of two worlds without belonging fully to either.

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.

Tuition Costs of Master's of Health Professions Education Programs: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

PURPOSE

The increasing professionalization of medical education during the past 2 decades has ushered in an era in which formal degrees, particularly master's of health professions education (MHPE), have become important for career advancement in medical education. Although tuition costs can pose a substantial barrier for many seeking advanced degrees in health professions education, data on tuition associated with these programs are lacking. This study examines the accessibility of pertinent cost-related information available to prospective students and the variability of costs among programs worldwide.

METHOD

The authors conducted an Internet-based, cross-sectional study, augmented with emails and direct contact with educators, to extract tuition-related data for MHPE programs between March 29, 2022, and September 20, 2022. Costs were converted to an annual total within each jurisdiction's currency and converted to U.S. dollars on August 18, 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 121 programs included in the final cost analysis, only 56 had publicly available cost information. Excluding programs free to local students, the mean (SD) total tuition cost was $19,169 ($16,649), and the median (interquartile range) cost was $13,784 ($9,401- $22,650) (n = 109). North America had the highest mean (SD) tuition for local students ($26,751 [$22,538]), followed by Australia and New Zealand ($19,778 [$10,514]) and Europe ($14,872 [$7,731]), whereas Africa had the lowest ($2,598 [$1,650]). The region with the highest mean (SD) tuition for international students was North America ($38,217 [$19,500]), followed by Australia and New Zealand ($36,891 [$10,397]) and Europe ($22,677 [$10,010]), whereas Africa had the lowest ($3,237 [$1,189]).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in the geographic distribution of MHPE programs and marked differences in tuition. Incomplete program websites and limited responsiveness from many programs contributed to a lack of transparency regarding potential financial implications. Greater efforts are necessary to ensure equitable access to health professions education.

Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review

BACKGROUND

Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012-2022) on their quality of life.

METHODS

An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022.

RESULTS

We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias.

Reconsidering a Global Agency for Medical Education: Back to the Drawing Board?

Issue: The World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) was established in 1972 and in the five decades that followed, has been the de facto global agency for medical education. Despite this apparently formidable remit, it has received little analysis in the academic literature. Evidence: In this article, we examine the historical context at the time WFME was established and summarize the key decisions it has taken in its history to date, highlighting particularly how it has adopted positions and programmes that have seemingly given precedence to the values and priorities of countries in the Global North. In doing so, we challenge the inevitability of the path that it has taken and consider other possible avenues that such a global agency in medical education could have taken, including to advocate for, and to develop policies that would support countries in the Global South. Implications: This article proposes a more democratic and equitable means by which a global organization for medical education might choose its priority areas, and a more inclusive method by which it could engage the medical education community worldwide. It concludes by hypothesizing about the future of global representation and priority-setting, and outlines a series of principles that could form the basis for a reimagined agency that would have the potential to become a force for empowerment and global justice in medical education.

The personal is political in the struggle for equity in global medical education research and scholarship

Medical education research is rooted in a long tradition of objectivity, evidence-based methods, and clinical surety. However, the inexorable confidence, health professions research education, and scholarship have in the manifest supremacy of western science as the foundational epistemology is questionable. Is this bravado legitimate and if so by what authority? How does this dominance of western epistemic frames determine how we are seen and how we see ourselves as health professions educators scholars and researchers? In what ways does western epistemic dominance influence how and why we conduct research? What do we consider as important to research in health professions education (HPE)? The answers are different depending on where we position ourselves or are placed in a hierarchy of scholarly privilege. I pose that the supremacy of Western scientific epistemology in modern medical education, research, and practice blurs differently colored scientific lenses and silences marginalized voices from legitimate contribution to HPE.

Analysis of peer reviewers' response to invitations by gender and geographical region: cohort study of manuscripts reviewed at 21 biomedical journals before and during covid-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To describe gender and geographical inequalities in invitations to review and the response to these invitations and to assess whether inequalities increased during the covid-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

19 specialist medical journals and two large general medical journals from BMJ Publishing Group.

POPULATION

Reviewers invited to review manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. The cohort was followed up to 28 February 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reviewer's agreement to review.

RESULTS

A total of 257 025 reviewers were invited (38.6% (88 454/228 869) women), and 90 467 (35.2%) agreed to review. Invited reviewers were mainly (217 682; 84.7%) affiliated with high income countries: Europe (122 414; 47.6%), North America (66 931; 26.0%), Africa (25 735; 10.0%), Asia (22 693; 8.8%), Oceania (16 175; 6.3%), and South America (3076; 1.2%). Independent factors associated with agreement to review were gender (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92, for women compared with men), geographical affiliation (2.89, 2.73 to 3.06, for Asia; 3.32, 2.94 to 3.75 for South America; 1.35, 1.27 to 1.43, for Oceania; and 0.35, 0.33 to 0.37, for Africa compared with Europe), and country income (0.47, 0.45 to 0.49, for upper middle income; 5.12, 4.67 to 5.61, for lower middle income; and 4.66, 3.79 to 5.73, for low income compared with high income country). Agreement was also independently associated with editor's gender (0.96, 0.93 to 0.99, for women compared with men), last author's geographical affiliation (0.80, 0.78 to 0.83, for Asia; 0.89, 0.85 to 0.94, for Oceania compared with Europe), impact factor (1.78, 1.27 to 2.50, for >10 compared with <5), and type of peer review process (0.52, 0.35 to 0.77, for open compared with anonymised). During the first and second phases of the pandemic, agreement was lower than in the pre-pandemic period (P<0.001). The interaction between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's gender was non-significant. However, significant interaction was found between time periods and covid-19 related topic and reviewer's geographical affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce bias and improve diversity, editors need to identify and implement effective strategies and continually evaluate progress against these to ensure that more women and researchers from upper middle income and low income countries are involved in review.

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.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Editorial Boards of Global Health Journals

Journals have been described as “duty bearers” of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored “excellent” on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards.

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape

INTRODUCTION

The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the field's discourses. Researchers have identified a lack of author diversity, which suggests potential epistemic injustice. This study investigates author characteristics to provide an evidence-based starting point for communal discussion with the intent to move medical education towards a future that holds space for, and values, diverse ways of knowing.

METHOD

The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000 and 2020 to identify author characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender and geographic location and their intersection. Article metadata was downloaded from Web of Science. Genderize.io was used to predict author gender.

RESULTS

The journals published 37 263 articles authored by 62 708 unique authors. Males were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n = 62 828; 55.7%) than females (n = 49 975; 44.3%). Authors listed affiliations in 146 countries of which 95 were classified as Global South. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n = 3765; 16.2%). Global South authors accounted for 12 007 (11.4%) author positions of which 3594 (3.8%) were female.

DISCUSSION

This study provides an evidence-based starting point to discuss the imbalance of author voices in medical education, especially when considering the intersection of gender and geographical location, which further suggests epistemic injustice in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement by engaging the community in discussions about what knowledge matters in medical education, the role of journals in promoting diversity, how to best use this baseline data and how to continue studying epistemic injustice in medical education.

Editing the editors: Aims and priorities of health professions education journals

PURPOSE

Although health professions education (HPE) scholarship has flourished in recent decades, the influence of HPE journals has received little attention. This study examines the editorial policies and priorities of leading HPE journals.

METHODS

Fourteen HPE journals with the highest impact factors were reviewed for their editorial aims, scope, intended readership, and priority topic areas. Text from journal websites was coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

10/14 HPE journals included in this study were linked to regional or national education societies. Two focussed predominantly on medicine, one on dentistry, one on nursing, one on nutrition, and the remaining nine on general HPE. Although journals differed in their projected aims and proposed readerships, four overarching editorial themes were identified: (1) methodological and theoretical rigor; (2) impact on practice; (3) global relevance; (4) advancing knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Leading HPE journals share a number of priority areas and principles, implying some cohesion and consensus amongst the HPE scholarly community. These journals prioritise impact at the level of individual practitioners. Given the importance of policy level change in the development and reform of HPE around the world, the relative lack of focus on policy impact in HPE journals is worthy of further exploration.

Quality and constructed knowledge: Truth, paradigms, and the state of the science

CONTEXT AND TRUTH

Education is a social science. Social science knowledge is related to its context of origin. The concept of global 'truth' in education is therefore of limited use when truth is tempered by context. The wider applicability of our knowledge can only be judged if we look at the context in which that knowledge was produced and the assumptions that underpin it. This calls into question the idea that educational research is a quest for global 'truth', although in relation to programme evaluation, truth tied to context is an aim. An analysis is presented of the effects of social construction on research and evaluation processes, on the selection of paradigms, reporting and interpreting findings, and on the ethics of all this.

QUALITY AND IMPROVEMENT

Quality improvement is based on information selected, constructed and interpreted by those who gather, analyse or use it. The strength, and not the weakness, of our knowledge is that it is socially constructed, contextual and of its time. Increasingly looking for our own truth about educational quality, and not importing the truth of others, is crucial to the state of the science. In terms of quality development, using others' findings must be based on informed local judgement. In social science, those judgements are linked to social context and their associated ideologies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

The hallmark of social science is not a narrowing of focus and the search for one truth, but is a broadening of concepts, theories, paradigms, reported experience and method, and an intention for each to tell their own truth well. This will lead to a wealth of diverse views and analysed experience. The science of medical education must seek many truths.

The leaky pipeline of publications and knowledge generation in medical education

None