A Call to Action: Moving the Scientific Publication Process toward Social Justice

Abstract

Many scientific journals have committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, but publish articles counter to this goal. We propose actions the scientific community should take to move research and the publication process toward more rigorous and socially-just standards.

Discovering Inclusivity in Remote Sensing: Leaving No One Behind

“…First author publications and editorial board roles seem to reflect each other in other fields (Dhanani and Jones, 2017;Helmer et al, 2017). As we advocate for diversifying editorial boards, we believe this will also result in more diverse authorship and more inclusive publication processes (Cho et al, 2014;Lerback and Hanson, 2017;Cheng et al, 2021), leaving no one behind.…”

“…The lack of representation and diversity at this evolved stage of scientific publishing in fields like remote sensing restricts science from reaching its full potential (Murray et al, 2019;Schurr et al, 2020). Conversely, developing more gender and geographically diverse editorial boards will provide the opportunity to connect with research from around the globe, thereby aiding in considering global opinions and voices (Cheng et al, 2021). This will better represent different global, regional, or local communities and interests, and ultimately lead to superior science -based solutions to the world's most pressing problems like climate change or loss of diversity.…”

“…2) Journals and gatekeepers must act responsibly: Gatekeepers and journals should actively make their editorial and review boards more representative and inclusive, and with modesty enable regional experts to evaluate what is relevant work in specific areas. These efforts can be achieved through policies that support more diverse editorial and review boards (Cho et al, 2014;Cheng et al, 2021;Maas et al, 2021). 3) Editorial boards must strive for internal diversity: This will drive change from the top, create visible pathways for junior academics, and encourage diverse perspectives and expertise in areas sought for special issue publications (Cheng et al, 2021;Cho et al, 2014;Emerald Publishing, n.d.;Lerback and Hanson, 2017;Squazzoni et al, 2021).…”

“…These efforts can be achieved through policies that support more diverse editorial and review boards (Cho et al, 2014;Cheng et al, 2021;Maas et al, 2021). 3) Editorial boards must strive for internal diversity: This will drive change from the top, create visible pathways for junior academics, and encourage diverse perspectives and expertise in areas sought for special issue publications (Cheng et al, 2021;Cho et al, 2014;Emerald Publishing, n.d.;Lerback and Hanson, 2017;Squazzoni et al, 2021). 4) Double blind reviews or fully open reviewing to tackle bias and harsh reviews: Given the bias observed towards accepting papers from authors considered 'similar' to the editors and reviewers (Helmer et al, 2017;Murray et al, 2019), we should investigate more widespread double blind reviews (Darling 2015), or alternatively fully open reviews where all are accountable for their words and decisions.…”