Gender diversity

/ Wed, 07/03/2024 - 10:46

Abstract

In scholarly publishing, men are overrepresented as research subjects, authors, reviewers, editors, and executives. Steps to increase gender diversity can include actively recruiting more women and gender minorities to serve as reviewers, editors, and publishing executives, adopting policies to support gender-related reporting and double- or triple-anonymous reviewing, and offering guidance to reduce unconscious bias.

Main Text

In scholarly publishing, gender diversity is understood as the equitable or fair representation of people of different genders (including men, women, non-binary individuals, and others) in various roles. It is relevant to multiple facets of scholarly publishing, and lack of gender diversity can have consequences for individuals, as well as for research and society more broadly. Although recent literature reports on gender disparities affecting women, less data is available on other groups (e.g. non-binary individuals) because it may not be collected, but also because they may not wish to disclose their gender, and their right to privacy must be respected.

Problems stemming from lack of gender diversity can begin early in research. For instance, if there is inadequate representation of genders in a study sample, the results could be less useful overall, while the absence of gender-related reporting could hinder the translation of research into practice (e.g., for healthcare). Diamond OA publishers can help by implementing policies that require gender-related reporting in journal publications (Sugimoto et al., 2019).

The degree and nature of gender diversity can differ greatly from one discipline to the next, (e.g. more men publish in engineering and more women in nursing). Nonetheless, across a range of disciplines and regions, it has been observed that women are underrepresented as authors, and particularly in prestigious authorship positions such as first, last or corresponding author (Sebo & Schwarz, 2023). Moreover, articles authored by women are cited less often (Chatterjee & Werner, 2021). There are encouraging signs that the gender gap for authorship and citations is beginning to shrink in some disciplines (Nature Aging, 2022; Ioannidis et al., 2023), but there is still work to be done, and some reports suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a setback (Squazzoni et al., 2021). In part, their perceived lack of productivity and expertise results in fewer women in senior ranks and in prestigious positions (e.g., journal editors). One reason for the underrepresentation of women authors may be that reviewer pools and editorial boards also contain a majority of men, who may exhibit unconscious bias towards women, leading to a higher manuscript rejection rate (Fox & Paine, 2019). Diamond OA publishers can help to break the cycle by setting diversity goals for peer reviewers, editors and editorial boards and monitoring progress toward them. They can also adopt policies to mitigate the impact of bias, such as double-anonymous reviewing (i.e., where authors and reviewers are not known to one another) or triple-anonymous reviewing (i.e., where authors, reviewers, and editors are not known to one another) (Kern-Goldberger, 2022). While some other approaches, such as open reviews, may help to promote positive aspects such as transparency, there is a risk that unconscious bias could still play a role and be detrimental to gender minorities. Therefore, benefits of open reviews must be weighed carefully against potential for negative impacts for diversity (Helmer et al., 2017). Ultimately, a diverse editorial board will help Diamond OA publishers to create more inclusive peer review processes and to publish content by authors with diverse profiles.

Another way in which gender disparity can manifest itself in scholarly publishing is when fewer women are awarded leadership or executive roles within publishers (Li & Zhao, 2023). Finally, gender disparity may co-occur with or be exacerbated by other forms of discrimination, creating a problem of intersectionality. For instance, gender disparities may be even more pronounced in certain regions (e.g., low-income countries) (Morgan et al., 2019). To combat such problems, Diamond OA publishers can raise awareness about unconscious bias and offer training or guidance to their staff, editors, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. Diamond OA publishers leaders can also engage in self-reflection and take direct action to address gender disparities within their own organisations.

Related Guidelines

Gender diversity

Related Training Materials

Equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging

References

Chatterjee, P., & Werner, R.M. (2021). Gender disparity in citations in high-impact journal articles, JAMA Network Open 4(7):e2114509. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14509
Editors. (2022). Closing the gender gap in authorship. Nature Aging 2, 563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-022-00262-4
Fox, C.W., & Paine, C.E.T. (2019). Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9(6): 3599-3619. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4993
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review, eLife 6:e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718
Ioannidis, J.P.A., Boyack, K.W., Collins, T.A., & Baas, J. (2023). Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors, PLoS Biology 21(11): e3002385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002385
Kern-Goldberger, A.R., James, R., Berghella, V., & Miller, E.S. (2022). The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 227(1):43-50.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.030
Li, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2023). The gender gap in job status and career development of Chinese publishing practitioners, Publications 11(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11010013
Morgan, R., Lundine, J., Irwin, B., & Grépin, K.A. (2019). Gendered geography: an analysis of authors in The Lancet Global Health. The Lancet Global Health 7(12): e1619-e1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30342-0
Sebo, P., & Schwarz, J. (2023). The level of the gender gap in academic publishing varies by country and region of affiliation: a cross-sectional study of articles published in general medical journals. PLoS ONE 19(9): e0291837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291837
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., Grimaldo, F., García-Costa, D., Farjam, M., & Mehmani, B. (2021). Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0257919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257919
Sugimoto, C.R., Ahn, Y., Smith, E., Macaluso, B., & Larivière, V. (2019). Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis. The Lancet 393(10171): 550-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32995-7

Glossary

Frequently Asked Questions

Licensing

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Toolsuite main menu

Last Updated

2025-10-13