Considerations for improving diversity, equity and inclusivity within research designs and teams

Asmal, Laila; Lamp, Gemma; Tan, Eric J.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114295

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…37 Finally, all of us have a key role to play in promoting gender equality within our teams, working groups, institutions, by exposing unfair gender gaps and addressing overt or concealed gender discrimination and bias. 38…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo investigate whether there is an association between women’s representation as peer reviewers and editors of medical journals.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the gender of editors and peer reviewers of journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group (BMJ-PG) in 2020 was determined based on given names. Trends over time were analysed for the BMJ between 2009 and 2017.ResultsOverall, this study included 47 of the 74 journals in the BMJ-PG. Women accounted for 30.2% of the 42 539 peer reviewers, with marked variation from 8% to 50%. Women represented 33.4% of the 555 editors, including 19.2% of the 52 editors-in-chief. There was a moderate positive correlation between the percentage of women as editors and as reviewers (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.590; p<0.0001). The percentage of women as editors, excluding editors-in-chief, was higher when the editor-in-chief was a woman than a man (53.3% vs 29.2%, respectively; p<0.0001). Likewise, the percentage of women as peer reviewers was higher in journals that had a woman as editor-in-chief in comparison with a man (32.0% vs 26.4%, respectively; p<0.0001). There was a slight increase in the percentage of women as peer reviewers from 27.3% in 2009 to 29.7% in 2017 in the BMJ.ConclusionsWomen account for less than one in three peer reviewers of medical journals. Women’s representation as peer reviewers is higher in journals with higher percentage of women as editors or with a woman as editor-in-chief. It is, thus, imperative to address the persisting gender gap at all levels of the publishing system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are literally seeing the emergence, out of the shadows, as it were, of a more diverse humanity. The evidence is strong that nurturing and leveraging this diversity is critical to all, from individual research groups to schools and organizations to entire countries. , …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evidence is strong that nurturing and leveraging this diversity is critical to all, from individual research groups to schools and organizations to entire countries. 21,22 This Virtual Issue presents 37 articles by 38 LGBTQIAPN+ scientists, as listed below. The participants cover a substantial age range, from graduate students to senior academics, and a wide range of institutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Out in Inorganic Chemistry: A Celebration of LGBTQIAPN+ Inorganic Chemists

Ghosh

Tolman

2022

Inorg. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…25 Indeed, research designs uninformed by a diverse research team could ultimately limit the generalizability of study findings. 26 Diversity in research study recruitment-a critical and growing effort-can benefit from diversity on the research team doing the recruitment. 27 Racial and ethnic diversity on the research team itself is underexplored and in need of further research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: “I feel out of touch with research”

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged. Objective How can we improve clinician engagement in research? Design Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings. Participants Twenty-one multidisciplinary clinicians from one healthcare system. Key Results We identified two major themes: perceptions of research (how research fits within job role) and characterizing effective engagement (what works and what does not work in frontline clinician engagement). “ Perceptions of Research ” encompassed three subthemes: prior research experience; desired degree of engagement; and benefits to clinicians engaging in research. “ Characterizing Effective Engagement ” had these subthemes: engagement barriers; engagement facilitators; and impact of clinician’s racial identity. Conclusions Investing in frontline clinicians as research collaborators is beneficial to clinicians themselves, the health systems that employ them, and those for which they care. Yet, there are multiple barriers to meaningful engagement. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-023-08200-9.

show abstract

Considerations for improving diversity, equity and inclusivity within research designs and teams

Cited by 13 publications

References 30 publications

Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group

Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group

Out in Inorganic Chemistry: A Celebration of LGBTQIAPN+ Inorganic Chemists

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: “I feel out of touch with research”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About