A New Look at an Old Problem: Improving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Scientific Research

Henry, Brandon V.; Chen, Herbert; Edwards, Michael A.; Faber, Lydia L.; Freischlag, Julie A.

doi:10.1177/00031348211029853

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As AI gains increasing currency as a tool to direct healthcare decision-making, and recognizing that patient data set composition influences AI algorithmic outcomes, consideration of the racial and ethnic composition of patient data sets has become important in order to ensure equity of healthcare outcomes, specifically within the sphere of cancer care [138]. Nevertheless, despite legal requirements for representative inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in health research, disparities persist; data sets used in AI-based algorithms continue to employ non-representative patient populations, undermining the validity of algorithmic decision-making [139,140]. Novel initiatives aim to improve and maintain broad population representation within health care data sets and across AI platforms.…”

Section: Facilitating Culturally Representative Ai Data Setsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise

McDonnell

2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 75 years, artificial intelligence has evolved from a theoretical concept and novel paradigm describing the role that computers might play in our society to a tool with which we daily engage. In this review, we describe AI in terms of its constituent elements, the synthesis of which we refer to as the AI Silecosystem. Herein, we provide an historical perspective of the evolution of the AI Silecosystem, conceptualized and summarized as a Kuhnian paradigm. This manuscript focuses on the role that the AI Silecosystem plays in oncology and its emerging importance in the care of the community oncology patient. We observe that this important role arises out of a unique alliance between the academic oncology enterprise and community oncology practices. We provide evidence of this alliance by illustrating the practical establishment of the AI Silecosystem at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and its team utilization by community oncology providers.

show abstract

Section: Facilitating Culturally Representative Ai Data Setsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise

McDonnell

2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Without publications and grant funding, the researcher may not progress to next levels in academia. Thus, BIPOC authors may face hurdles in their ability to publish and be successful in the academy (Henry et al, 2021;Taffe & Gilpin, 2021;Willis, in press).…”

Section: Underrepresentation As An Ethical Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior work in allied fields has found that BIPOC authors or authors working with BIPOC participants can experience bias in academic publishing (Gosztyla et al, 2021;Henry et al, 2021;Resnick & Elmore, 2016). In the absence of publicly available empirical data from ASHA and other CSD journals, we turn to data from other disciplines.…”

Section: Intersectional Bias In Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequity in Peer Review in Communication Sciences and Disorders

Girolamo

Castro

Fannin

et al. 2022

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by retaining and advancing Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) individuals in the discipline of communication sciences and disorders (CSD), amid critical shortages of faculty to train the next generation of practitioners and researchers. Publishing research is central to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of faculty. However, inequity in peer review may systematically target BIPOC scholars, adding yet another barrier to their success as faculty. This viewpoint article addresses the challenge of inequity in peer review and provides some practical strategies for developing equitable peer-review practices. First, we describe the demographics of ASHA constituents, including those holding research doctorates, who would typically be involved in peer review. Next, we explore the peer-review process, describing how inequity in peer review may adversely impact BIPOC authors or research with BIPOC communities. Finally, we offer real-world examples of and a framework for equitable peer review. Conclusions: Inequity at the individual and systemic levels in peer review can harm BIPOC CSD authors. Such inequity has effects not limited to peer review itself and exerts long-term adverse effects on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of BIPOC faculty in CSD. To uphold ASHA's commitment to DEI and to move the discipline of CSD forward, it is imperative to build equity into the editorial structure for publishing, the composition of editorial boards, and journals content. While we focus on inequity in CSD, these issues are relevant to other disciplines.

show abstract

“…In all, these signs run counter to the "leaky pipeline" argument, which proposes that, if BIPOC authors complete enough diversity programming, they will be able to jump through gatekeeping mechanisms that white scientists control (see Valantine & Collins, 2015, for an argument proposing diversity programming for BIPOC authors as the way to diversify the workforce). To be antiracist, our community must dismantle systemic barriers in the peer review (IN)EQUITY IN PEER REVIEW IN CSD 13 process faced by BIPOC authors and those who conduct research with BIPOC communities (Gosztyla et al, 2021;Henry et al, 2021). We believe that this problem is necessary and urgent.…”

Section: Race/ethnicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The consequences of inequity in peer review can play out in adverse ways over time and lead to increasingly racialized outcomes. If BIPOC authors face perpetual inequity in peer review, they will perpetually struggle to publish, which limits their ability to obtain grants to fund their research, carry out research, and to progress in their careers (Henry et al, 2021;Taffe & Gilpin, 2021;Willis, accepted). While rejection is normal in academia, the psychosocial consequences of rejection for BIPOC authors, who experience academic rejection at greater levels than white authors, may also contribute to limited ability to publish and pursue a career in the field.…”

Section: Race/ethnicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequity in peer review in communication sciences and disorders

Girolamo¹,

Castro²,

Fannin³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under review at the American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Purpose: The field of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) faces a critical shortage of faculty to train the next generation of practitioners and researchers, as well as of minorities from marginalized backgrounds. In parallel, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion by retaining and advancing Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faculty in CSD. Given that publishing research is central to retention and advancement, this tutorial addresses the challenge of inequity in peer review and provides some practical strategies for developing equitable peer review practices.Method: We describe the demographics of ASHA constituents, including those holding research doctorates, who would typically be involved in peer review. Next, we explore the peer review process, describing examples from an ASHA journal to emphasize how inequity in peer review may adversely impact BIPOC authors or research with BIPOC communities. Finally, we offer real-world examples of and a framework for equitable peer review.Conclusions: Inequity at the individual and systemic levels in peer review can harm BIPOC CSD authors. Such inequity has effects not limited to peer review itself and exerts long-term adverse effects on the retention and advancement of BIPOC faculty in CSD. To uphold ASHA’s commitment to DEI and to progress the field of CSD, it is imperative to build equity into the editorial structure for publishing, the composition of editorial boards, and journals content. While we focus on inequity in the field of CSD, these issues are relevant to other fields.

show abstract

A New Look at an Old Problem: Improving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Scientific Research

Cited by 7 publications

References 42 publications

Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise

Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise

Inequity in Peer Review in Communication Sciences and Disorders

Inequity in peer review in communication sciences and disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About