Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management

Cho, Alyssa; Johnson, Shelly A.; Schuman, Carrie; Adler, Jennifer; González, Óscar; Graves, Sarah J.; Huebner, Jana; Marchant, Dominique; Rifai, Sami W.; Skinner, Irina; Bruna, Emilio M.

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.369v2

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diversity in global health workforce and leadership has received a lot of attention, particularly in terms of gender and representation of low/middle-income countries in global health institutions like the WHO 1–4. Representation of women in medical journals has been studied extensively including for authorship, peer-reviewers and editorial positions in several medical specialities,5–14 with only a few studies analysing geographical diversity 15 16. Although many journals champion diversity narratives in several domains of global health,17–19 the issue of diversity in specialty global health journals has not been studied previously.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity in the editorial boards of global health journals

Bhaumik

Jagnoor

2019

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity in the editorial boards of global health journals

Bhaumik

Jagnoor

2019

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…; Grod, Lortie & Budden ; Cho et al . ), in working groups (Campbell et al . ), at symposia (Schroeder et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Cho et al . ; http://timotheepoisot.fr/2014/11/24/editorial-boards-gender-bias/), and this disparity is often greater at more senior editorial levels (McSweeney, Donahoe & Swindell ; Addis & Villa ; Porter, Christian & Poling ; but see Mauleón et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Lack of diversity on editorial boards might generate disparities in editorial and peer review that contribute to gender and geographic disparities in scholarly publishing. We use a comprehensive data set of the peer review process for all papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from January 2004 to June 2014 to examine how gender, seniority and geographic location of editors and reviewers influence reviewer recruitment and scores given to papers by reviewers. The gender ratio of editors for Functional Ecology was majority male, but the proportion of female editors increased over time. The gender ratio of selected reviewers was also highly majority male, but the proportion of women selected as reviewers increased over the 10 years largely because the number of women on the editorial board increased and female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors. Male editors selected <25% female reviewers even in the year they selected the most women, but female editors consistently selected ˜30–35% female reviewers. Editors also over‐selected reviewers from their own geographic locality. Women invited to review were less likely to respond to review invitations, but more likely to accept if they responded. Women invited to review responded to the invitation similarly regardless of whether the editor inviting them was male or female, but men invited to review were both less likely to respond and more likely to decline if the editor was female. Review scores given to papers did not differ between male and female reviewers, and final decisions (proportion of papers rejected) did not differ between male and female editors. The proportion of women among selected reviewers decreased with editor seniority when the editor was male but increased with editor seniority when the editor was female. Thus, the gender ratio of selected reviewers differed little between early‐career male and female editors but differed a lot between late‐career (more senior) male and female editors. Individuals invited to review were less likely to agree to review if the editor was more senior. Editor gender, seniority and geographic location affect who is invited to review for Functional Ecology, and how invitees respond to review invitations, but not the final outcome of the peer review process. To increase diversity of reviewer populations, journals should increase gender, age and geographic diversity of their editorial boards.

show abstract

“…Finally, we assessed the geographic distribution of editors at broader geographic and macroeconomic scales by comparing the representation of editors from different World Bank geographic regions and national income categories. Details on data collection and analysis are in S1 Text ; data used in this study are archived at the Dryad repository: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.6jn86.2 and https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.mh189 [ 17 , 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scholars comprising journal editorial boards play a critical role in defining the trajectory of knowledge in their field. Nevertheless, studies of editorial board composition remain rare, especially those focusing on journals publishing research in the increasingly globalized fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Using metrics for quantifying the diversity of ecological communities, we quantified international representation on the 1985–2014 editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals. Over the course of 3 decades, there were 3,827 unique scientists based in 70 countries who served as editors. The size of the editorial community increased over time—the number of editors serving in 2014 was 4-fold greater than in 1985—as did the number of countries in which editors were based. Nevertheless, editors based outside the “Global North” (the group of economically developed countries with high per capita gross domestic product [GDP] that collectively concentrate most global wealth) were extremely rare. Furthermore, 67.18% of all editors were based in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Consequently, geographic diversity—already low in 1985—remained unchanged through 2014. We argue that this limited geographic diversity can detrimentally affect the creativity of scholarship published in journals, the progress and direction of research, the composition of the STEM workforce, and the development of science in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia (i.e., the “Global South”).

show abstract

Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management

Cited by 13 publications

References 6 publications

Diversity in the editorial boards of global health journals

Diversity in the editorial boards of global health journals

Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal

A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About