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

Espin, Johanna; Palmas, Sebastian; Carrasco-Rueda, Farah; Riemer, Kristina; Allen, Pablo E.; Berkebile, Nathan; Hecht, Kirsten; Kastner-Wilcox, Kay R.; Núñez‐Regueiro, Maurício M.; Prince, Candice M.; Rios, Constanza; Ross, Erica P.; Sangha, Bhagatveer; Tyler, Tia; Ungvari‐Martin, Judit; Villegas, Mariana; Cataldo, Tara Tobin; Bruna, Emilio M.

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2002760

Cited by 75 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, among ecology journals, the representation of scientists from low human development index (HDI) countries on editorial boards is an order of magnitude less than the representation of such scientists as authors in those same journals (Livingston et al 2016). Despite growing scientific output by researchers from low HDI countries, the diversity (calculated as an inverse Simpson diversity index) of editorial boards among 24 environmental biology journals has remained consistent since the 1980s, with indices ranging from 3 to 5 (Espin et al 2017). This is on par with results from our survey, which yielded a diversity index of 3.7 for ASLO journals.…”

Section: Native Language Disparities Exist In Ae Peer Review Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is on par with results from our survey, which yielded a diversity index of 3.7 for ASLO journals. Improving geographic representation on editorial boards may also ensure that the science published is relevant to researchers beyond North America and Europe (Livingston et al 2016;Espin et al 2017). Because some regions, such as Central/South America and Eastern Europe, also display greater gender parity in authorships (Larivière et al 2013), better inclusion of these regions in editorial boards may also naturally lead to future improved gender parity.…”

Section: Native Language Disparities Exist In Ae Peer Review Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Is in a “Lake” Name? That Which We Call a Lake by Any Other Name

Soranno

Webster

Smith

et al. 2020

Limnology & Oceanogr Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given how important lakes are to people, it might seem safe to assume that careful thought has been put into the naming of lakes, and that lake names reflect the high societal value people place on lakes. We examined these assumptions by analyzing the official names in the U.S. Geographic Names Information System for the 479,950 lakes ≥ 1 ha in the conterminous U.S. We found that 83% of lakes were unnamed and most of these were small lakes with 80% of unnamed lakes being smaller than 4 ha. Based on the 83,115 named lakes, we found that lake names reflect peoples' everyday lives, that lakes can inspire creativity (although the most common lake name is “Mud”), that Native American and indigenous languages have played a role in lake naming, and that there are regional differences in lake names. Unfortunately, we also found that derogatory terms were part of some lake names. We advocate for thoughtful and inclusive official naming of the 400,000 unnamed lakes in the U.S., as well as renaming of the lakes with derogatory terms to help focus attention on the importance of lakes to local communities and nations.

show abstract

Section: Native Language Disparities Exist In Ae Peer Review Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Native Language Disparities Exist In Ae Peer Review Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

What Is in a “Lake” Name? That Which We Call a Lake by Any Other Name

Soranno

Webster

Smith

et al. 2020

Limnology & Oceanogr Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The underrepresentation 574 of women at eLife mirrors global trends-women comprise a minority of total authorships, yet 575 constitute an even smaller proportion of gatekeepers across many domains [14, [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. Similarly, 576 gatekeepers at eLife were less geographically diverse than their authorship, reflecting the general 577 underrepresentation of the "global south" in leadership positions of international journals [75]. 578 The demographics of the reviewer pool made certain authors more likely to benefit from 579 homophily in the review process than others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

Murray

Siler

Larivière

et al. 2018

Preprint

131

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fairness of scholarly peer review has been challenged by evidence of disparities in publication outcomes based on author demographic characteristics. To assess this, we conducted an exploratory analysis of peer review outcomes of 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions that were submitted to the biosciences journal eLife between 2012 and 2017. Women and authors from nations outside of North America and Europe were underrepresented both as gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers) and authors. We found evidence of a homophilic relationship between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors and the outcome of peer review; that is, there were higher rates of acceptance in the case of gender and country homophily. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was seven percent, or 3.5 percentage points, greater than for female last authors (95% CI = [0.5, 6.4]); this gender inequity was greatest, at nine percent or about 4.8 percentage points (95% CI = [0.3, 9.1]), when the team of reviewers was all male; this difference was smaller and not significantly different for mixed-gender reviewer teams. Homogeny between countries of the gatekeeper and the corresponding author was also associated with higher acceptance rates for many countries. To test for the persistence of these effects after controlling for potentially confounding variables, we conducted a logistic regression including document and author metadata. Disparities in acceptance rates associated with gender and country of affiliation and the homophilic associations remained. We conclude with a discussion of mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. Code and anonymized data have been made available at https://github.com/murrayds/elife-analysis 1/61 Submitted to PLOS Biology Author summaryPeer review, the primary method by which scientific work is evaluated, is ideally a fair and equitable process in which scientific work is judged solely on its own merit. However, the integrity of peer review has been called into question based on evidence that outcomes often differ between male and female authors, and for authors in different countries. We investigated such disparities at the biosciences journal eLife by analyzing the demographics of authors and gatekeepers (editors and peer reviewers), and peer review outcomes of all submissions between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were more favorable for male authors and those affiliated with institutions in North America and Europe; these groups were also over-represented among gatekeepers. There was evidence that peer review outcomes were influenced by homophily-a preference of gatekeepers for manuscripts from authors with shared characteristics. We discuss mechanisms that could contribute to this effect, directions for future research, and policy implications. 2/61Submitted to PLOS Biology 1 Peer review is foundational to the development, gatekeeping, and dissemination of research, 2 while also underpinning the professional hiera...

show abstract

“…, Espin et al . ), which also influence engagement in international collaboration. Finally, we encourage all researchers to be more proactive in developing multinational collaborations, especially with scientists in underrepresented tropical countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The changing nature of collaboration in tropical ecology and conservation

Perez

Hogan

2018

Biotropica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration can improve conservation initiatives through increases in article impact and by building scientific understating required for conservation practice. We investigated temporal trends in collaboration in the tropical ecology and conservation literature by examining patterns of authorship for 2271 articles published from 2000 to 2016 in Biotropica and the Journal of Tropical Ecology. Consistent with trends in other studies and scientific disciplines, we found that the number of authors per article increased from 2.6 in 2000 to 4.2 in 2015 using a generalized linear model (glm). We modeled changes in multinational collaboration in articles using a glm and found that the mean number of author‐affiliated countries increased from 1.3 (±0.6 SD) to 1.7 (±0.8 SD) over time and that increases were best explained by the number of authors per article. The proportion of authors based in tropical countries increased, but the probability of tropical–extratropical collaboration did not and was best explained solely by the number of authors per article. Overall, our analyses suggest that only certain types of collaboration are increasing and that these increases coincide with a general increase in the number of authors per article. Such changes in author numbers and collaboration could be the result of increased data sharing, changes in the scope of research questions, changes in authorship criteria, or scientific migration. We encourage tropical conservation scientists continue to build collaborative ties, particularly with researchers based in underrepresented tropical countries, to ensure that tropical ecology and conservation remains inclusive and effective.

show abstract

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

Cited by 75 publications

References 29 publications

What Is in a “Lake” Name? That Which We Call a Lake by Any Other Name

What Is in a “Lake” Name? That Which We Call a Lake by Any Other Name

Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review

The changing nature of collaboration in tropical ecology and conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About