Improving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has emerged as a primary goal for much of the scholarly and medical publication industry. Almost all major academic publishers have public statements testifying their commitment to improving staff diversity, particularly among production editors and editorial boards. However, quantifying diversity has proven to be a major challenge for these initiatives. Here, we’ll review recent research that aims to quantify the diversity of journal editors, assess major challenges in measuring diversity, and explore potential solutions for the future.
Why Build Diverse Editorial Boards?
Across industries, improving the diversity of an organization results in many social, moral, financial, and operational benefits. For journals in particular, increasing diversity has been shown to create a more comprehensive range of perspectives, balance knowledge gaps, and improve the quality of published articles. Diversity in editorial boards is also correlated with increased diversity in the author teams whose papers are accepted for publication in the journal, which is critical for combating health inequities and improving patient outcomes.
Several research studies have been conducted in recent years to measure specific elements of diversity among journal editors and editorial boards. Most of these studies were conducted through email surveys or by assessing publicly available information (notably the editorial board members listed on journal websites). Below, we’ll present a general overview of recent findings. In this description, we’ve used the language found (eg, ‘female’ vs ‘women’) within each respective article; we recommend reviewing the methods of the article for a further description of terminology.
Dimensions of Equity
Gender
- Psychology journals: Palser et al. (2022) found that 40% of editors were female.
- Neuroscience journals: Palser et al. (2022) found that 30% of editors were female.
- Psychiatry and Neuroscience: Shim et al. (2021) found that 64% of surveyed editors were women.
- Global health journals: Bhaumik and Jagnoor (2019) found that 40% of editors were female.
- Surgical journals: White et al. (2021) found that 26.5% of surveyed editors were female.
- Interdisciplinary medical journals: Salazar et al. (2021) found that, across 25 high-impact (impact factor>10) scientific and medical journals and a total of 368 editors, 48.1% of surveyed editors were female and 1% were nonbinary.
Racial and Ethnicity
- Surgical journals: White et al. (2021) found that 2.9% of surveyed editors were Black and 3.3% were Hispanic.
- Psychiatry and Neuroscience: Shim et al. (2021) found that 26.9% of surveyed editors were Black, 9.9% were Asian, and 16.6% were Hispanic/Latinx. Of surveyed editors-in-chief, only 3.1% were Black, 0% were Asian, and 6.3% were Hispanic/Latinx.
- Interdisciplinary: Salazar et al. (2021) found that, across 25 high-impact (impact factor>10) scientific and medical journals and a total of 368 editors, 14.9% of editors were Asian, 3.8% were Hispanic/Latinx/of Spanish origin, and 1.1% were Black.
Sexual orientation
- Interdisciplinary: Salazar et al. (2021) found that 3.3% of editors identified as bisexual, 3% identified as gay/lesbian, and 2.7% identified as queer/other.
Challenges in quantifying diversity in academic publishing
Recent studies of diversity among journal production editors and editorial boards demonstrated notable variation in results, which reflects the many challenges involved in quantifying diversity. First, there are many dimensions of diversity. The most generally studied and measured elements of diversity for journal editors were gender, race, and sexual orientation; little to no information exists regarding diversity in disability, socioeconomic status, age, or geographic region. Between studies, surveys often differed in the types of demographic data collected, which can make comparison difficult.
Second, editorial diversity appears to vary greatly based on the impact factor of journals. Salazar et al. (2021) was one of the few research teams to focus exclusively on high-impact journals, and they reported substantially lower diversity rates than studies with similar methodologies. More research is needed correlating journal impact factor and diversity. Third, due to the relative lack of available research, there are few review articles that synthesize, compare, or compile data to show an overall snapshot of editorial diversity within any given niche.
Fourth, there are inherent challenges in quantifying diversity for any industry that affect our understanding of editorial diversity. Demographic data is typically self-reported, and individuals may decide to not voluntarily identify some traits, such as disability status or sexual orientation, out of fear of job insecurity or discrimination. Percentages can also be misleading; as Haber (2022) points out in his example, a “five-member board of directors…[that is] 20% female, 20% person of color, 20% person with a disability, and 20% LGBTQ+” can be interpreted in various ways. While this could represent “one white man, one female, one person of color, one person with a disability, and one LGBTQ+ [person]”, the same statistical breakdown could also apply if the board consisted of “four white men and one female who is of color, with a disability, and LGBTQ+.”
Solutions for Quantifying Diversity
The currently available research paints an unclear picture as to the actual state of diversity among journal production editors and editorial boards. One potential solution to effectively measure and quantify diversity is the Composite Editorial Board Diversity Score. Developed by Bhaumik and Jagnoor (2019), this scoring system uses the three primary domains of gender, country income level, and geographic region of editorial board members to assign journals a score between 3 and 8. This score has great potential to be expanded to include other dimensions of diversity, resulting in a metric that could be used as a standard quantification of editorial board diversity. Alternatively, it may be time to rethink why we measure diversity. As many diversity scholars and researchers have stated, diversity is unlike most other organizational metrics in that it describes a social experience. Metrics of diversity are often improperly generalized to describe an organization’s workplace culture, inclusivity, and equitable practices and policies, but these factors aren’t always correlated. When measuring diversity, it’s important to consider what that metric will be used to express. Though quantifying diversity can be a valuable endeavor, further exploring the equity and workplace experience within an organization can further support the foundational goal of making academic publishing a welcoming and inclusive industry for all.
