Challenging the "old boys club" in academia: Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health.
Challenging the "old boys club" in academia: Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pgph.0000541
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Mogo, Ebele R I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dada, Sara;van Daalen, Kim Robin;Barrios-Ruiz, Alanna;Wu, Kai-Ti;Desjardins, Aidan;Bryce-Alberti, Mayte;Castro-Varela, Alejandra;Khorsand, Parnian;Santamarta Zamorano, Ander;Jung, Laura;Malolos, Grace;Li, Jiaqi;Vervoort, Dominique;Hamilton, Nikita Charles;Patil, Poorvaprabha;El Omrani, Omnia;Wangari, Marie-Claire;Sibanda, Telma;Buggy, Conor;Mogo, Ebele R I
鉴于全球环境危机和可持续发展的需要，公共卫生和环境科学领域的相互关联性日益增强。这两个领域都需要跨学科思维和全球解决方案，这在很大程度上取决于同行评审期刊中记录的科学进展。期刊编辑在协调和塑造公认的科学知识方面发挥着关键作用。先前的研究表明，跨科学学科的编辑在性别和地域代表性方面缺乏多样性。本研究旨在探讨环境科学和公共卫生领域期刊编辑委员会出版的多样性。科睿唯安期刊引文报告数据库用于识别分类为公共、环境和职业 (PEO) 健康、环境研究或环境科学的期刊。目前的 EB 成员是在 2021 年 3 月 1 日至 5 月 31 日期间通过各期刊的公开网站确定的。收集了个人姓名、编辑委员会角色、机构隶属关系、地理位置（城市、国家）和推断性别。计算感兴趣比例的二项式 95% 置信区间。使用皮尔逊相关性和错误发现率调整来评估基于期刊的指标和编辑委员会特征之间的相关性。拟合线性回归和逻辑回归模型，以进一步评估性别存在、低收入和中等收入国家 (LMIC) 存在以及一些基于期刊和编辑的指标之间的关系。在确定了 628 种独特期刊并排除已停产或不可用的期刊后，共纳入了 615 种期刊编辑委员会。对 591 种期刊进行了深入分析，为其 27,772 名编辑提供了完整的性别和地理数据。总体而言，大多数编辑是男性（65.9%），其次是女性（32.9%）和非二元/其他性别少数群体（0.05%）。 75.5% 的期刊编辑委员会 (n = 446) 主要由男性组成（>55% 男性），而只有 13.2% (n = 78) 表现出性别平等（45-55% 为女性/性别少数群体）。 PEO Health 类别的期刊性别多样性最高。此外，84% 的编辑 (n = 23,280) 来自高收入国家，只有 2.5% 的期刊 (n = 15) 在其编辑委员会中表现出经济平等（45-55% 的编辑来自中低收入国家）。从地理位置上看，大多数编辑机构位于联合国 (UN) 西欧和其他地区 (76.9%)，其中 35.2% 的编辑 (n = 9,761) 仅来自美国，8.6% (n = 2,373) 仅来自英国。没有一位主编是来自低收入国家的女性，总共只有 27 名编辑。通过对期刊编委会的审查，本研究揭露了环境科学和公共卫生领域编委会明显缺乏多样性的问题，探讨了影响知识创造和传播的权力动态，并提出了纠正这些结构性不平等的具体行动，以促进更公平、公正和有影响力的知识创造。
In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal’s publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals’ names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45–55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45–55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors’ institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.