Pervasive gender bias in editorial boards of biodiversity conservation journals

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in professional spaces, particularly at leadership positions. In science, the participation in editorial boards of journals is evidence of a high reputation within a specialty or field. Therefore, female presence in editorial boards can be used as a proxy for female presence and leadership in academic spaces. Here, we assessed the gender composition in editorial boards of 31 biodiversity conservation (BC) journals included in the Web of Science and obtained information on current and past editorial boards of these journals. We found pervasive gender bias in the editorial boards of the main scientific BC journals. Current editorial boards were composed of 1251 editors, of which only 28.7% were women. Nevertheless, gender biases are becoming smaller over time. Our projections indicate that BC journals may achieve gender balance in their editorial boards by the year 2038. We argue that a diverse and inclusive editorial board has greater chances to propose innovative solutions to conservation problems . Thus, the academic community, editors and journals must take proactive measures to achieve gender balance. Given that most editors are men, hiring women still depends on them; and these men need urgently to take their share of responsibility and be actors of change. More broadly, journals and science decision-makers must commit to their importance in the movement and start, for example, to hire and support women's work.

#TimesUp: tackling gender inequities in marine and fisheries science

“…In ocean science this raises important and neglected issues, as well as innovative solutions to conservation problems (Gissi et al, 2018;Liévano-Latorre et al, 2020). Team diversity has greater appeal across more stakeholder groups: women can more easily access local knowledge due to increased social sensitivity (critical for coastal fisheries research and conservation), and teams with a high proportion of women increase the collective intelligence of scientific teamwork and cooperation (Woolley et al, 2010).…”

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

“…Gender imbalance in the scientific publishing process is already evident when considering simple numerical disparities, starting with women's representation in scientific editorial boards (59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65), number of invited articles (66)(67)(68), frequency of being asked to referee (67)(68)(69), and number of publications (33,34,70). Here we extend the scope of this disparity by reporting clear under-representation of women in the BRE of a prominent biomedical journal (eLife).…”

“…Insofar as editorial service has the potential to influence the progress and direction of a given scientific field, appointment to an editorial board reflects the high regard and trust of a community towards individual editors (5,57). Despite repeated calls for making deliberate effort to incorporate gender diversity into editorial board structures (5,58), gender disproportions remain pervasive (59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65). Presently, little is known about gender disparities in the editorial process itself.…”

Male homophily in South American herpetology: one of the major processes underlying the gender gap in publications

“…2L-M). The alarming low number of women in editorial boards concerns not only herpetological journals but also a wide range of STEM journals (Cho et al, 2014;Fox et al, 2016;Salerno et al, 2019;Liévano-Latorre et al, 2020). These numbers misrepresent the gender diversity of the scientific community and it might negatively influence the manuscript evaluation process and women's participation in published research (Metz and Harzing, 2009;Mauleón et al, 2013;Cho et al, 2014).…”