Diversity in academic publishing: we still have a lot to do

Cait Cullen reports from IOPP's PubCon meeting, where a diverse panel discussed how publishers can support diversity, equity and inclusion in research

The advancement of any academic field hinges on the diversity of its members, from the authors and editorial boards, through to peer reviewers.

It enables journals to draw from a wide range of perspectives and expertise, strengthening innovation and performance, and limiting bias in decision making processes that determine who and what contributes to the scientific record.

But how can publishers promote equity in research as just one piece in the complex puzzle of academia? And who does this actually benefit? 

Sharing their experiences, a panel of four researchers explored the barriers to academia and publishing for those from underrepresented communities. They reflected on current initiatives to grow awareness of DE&I in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research, and suggested next steps for universities and publishers to create more inclusive spaces. 

What is your experience with DE&I in academia, and why is this so important to you? 

Dr. Tracey Berry, established academic and Vice-Dean of DE&I for the School of Engineering, Physical and Mathematical Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, kicked off the panel session commenting on identity bias in academia. “At school, in exams and for A-Levels, you are judged anonymously, but as you go on in academia the assessment structures and processes alter. People may be evaluated on factors other than their pure achievements and abilities, like future potential, having the same style/expectations as the assessor which can lead to biases, for example relating to race and gender,” she says. “We have come a long way in identifying such barriers and to train managers, in for example unconscious bias, but there is still a lot we can do to further empower decision-makers and to support people.”

 “As I started to have students of my own, I realised that a lot of them were struggling with the same issues I did ten years ago”, adds Dr. Cip Pruteanu, Lecturer in Extreme Conditions Physics in the School of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh and founder of the university’s Neurodiversity Support Network. “We need to level the playing field by providing adequate support for everyone as a base level, irrespective of which communities they belong to and allow everyone fair opportunity to contribute to the scientific process. This support can range from appropriate training for academics on how to communicate effectively and clearly, without leaving room for random interpretation, to more in-depth workshops on how to pro-actively identify  and engage with those needing personalised support.”

Visibility within academia is another major issue, says Dr. Clara Barker, Representative to Council for Inclusion and Diversity for the Institute of Physics (IOP) and Daphne Jackson Research Fellow at the Centre for Applied Superconductivity at the University of Oxford. Sharing her past experience, Barker, who identifies as transgender, said it was the lack of representation of LGBTQ+ people in her field that lead her to dropping out of school and doubting her place as an academic. “That visibility is so important. When I was first offered my position, I remember looking around and not seeing anyone like me and this made me doubt whether I would fit in there. Most people just care about my science, but every so often someone judges or excludes me due to who I am. But also every now and then I see it make a real difference to someone.”

Drawing together these experiences, Dr. Saher Hasnain, a Researcher at the Food Systems Transformation Programme with the University of Oxford's Environmental Change department, added that the pressures of representing communities can be a strain. "As an early career researcher, I've often question whether my identity plays a role in hiring, rather than solely my research qualifications. The expectation to attend events and speak about my experiences often adds to my workload and the pressures of academic life, but declining these would then suggest that I am letting down the multiple communities I could represent.

“I do not often see people like myself reflected in my professional and academic communities. This is something I am becoming more aware of as support and opportunities appear to decline along the academic career path." 

What are some of the barriers that people from underrepresented communities experience in academia?

The resounding answer from the panel was a lack of visibility within the field. Speaking from experience, Hasnain said: “There are a lot of things that don’t strike you until someone says it” - a sentiment shared by the rest of the panel.

“I do not recall having any female lecturers as a student. I only noticed this when a female staff member once walked into the lecture hall and I surprised myself by suddenly feeling quite excited and I then realised the lack of diversity in the lecturers. Unfortunately, I was quickly disappointed as the female appeared to be delivering a pile of lecture notes and promptly left,” adds Berry. “A male lecturer entered the room shortly afterwards.”

Can you tell us about the importance of approaching DE&I from a wider, intersectional perspective?

As a DE&I representative, Barker often juggles the pressures of supporting many groups with different needs, saying: “We’ve got to be careful not to promote one characteristic over others because they are all as important as each other. It often feels like one step forward and two steps back. We must make sure that we bring everyone forward rather than placing barriers on some by focussing on other groups. Transitioning to intersectional initiatives can help us to tackle this.” As an example, Barker cites the IOP’s transition from the gender-based Juno Award, which recognised institutes that have taken action to address gender equality at all levels, to the new Physics Inclusion Award, which looks at equality, diversity and inclusion more widely to encompass the broader range of challenges now facing the physics community within higher education. 

Barker also expressed concerns over the image of awards and initiatives designed to support communities: “A lot of people see these awards as just ‘paperwork’, but they mean so much more than that. We can really celebrate our strengths and differences through them providing we utilise them correctly.”

Complimenting the idea of intersectional awards, Berry shared that setting up a Women in Physics group at Royal Holloway, University of London has led to attendees tackling many other issues and receiving support on a range of topics beyond gender. “There is a lot more diversity in attendees than just being women. These students often face more issues outside of the lecture hall that we can support each other with.”

Are there any initiatives by publishers and universities that are successfully creating inclusive spaces for students and academics to thrive? Do you have any ideas of what further steps can be made? 

Pruteanu believes that anonymous submission processes such as IOPP’s option to submit papers double anonymous are one of the most beneficial schemes in academic publishing for underrepresented groups as they remove barriers that “should not be there in the first place”. He explains that these barriers always affect the most junior researchers first, preventing them from furthering their careers: “With anonymous submissions it is clear cut what is needed to publish your work no matter what career stage you are at.”

However, he says the language barrier in peer review is one of the most pressing areas where the industry can make progress: “Language barriers can create difficulties within academic publishing, but publishers can help us with this. Reviewer reports could be curated and processed to ensure the comments come across in an intentional and professional manner and abstracts of papers could potentially be translated in different languages with the help of AI.”

Another issue that is successfully addressed by IOP Publishing and other publishers is the option to change someone’s name on previously published work. Barker said: “There are many reasons an author might want to change their name on their published work, including getting married, getting away from abuse and transitioning. Most transgender people wish to leave their ‘dead name’ behind and when there is no mechanism in place for authors to change their name on their work, it often leads to them not sharing it, even though they are proud of it.”

Hasnain agreed and reckoned that these policies can factor into author’s decisions on who to publish with and that in her experience it is common for authors to select and build relationships with journals based on their DE&I policies.

In your opinion, what is the most critical change to be made in academic publishing within the next year?

Looking at current trends in publishing, Barker wondered how innovations in academic publishing might help level the playing field: “One important thing coming up is AI. It is happening and it’s not going to stop. The question we should be asking ourselves is not how to stop it, but how can we embrace it. We should be looking for ways to use AI as a tool to support people from underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in their journey to publishing.”

“It’s a shame that institutional affiliation is still a massive denominator of someone’s success in academia,” says Hasnain. “The institutionalisation of research is increasingly meaning that if one is not affiliated with an already well-known university or research group, developing legitimacy can take a lot of time and effort; something that those in prestigious institutions or in the Global North may not necessarily experience. Legitimacy as an early career researcher or a researcher in the Global South may also be difficult and time-consuming to establish with the increasing precarity of employment.” 

Hasnain also questions the relevancy of longstanding procedures in academia: “At what point do we change the processes that don’t work for all of us? We need to question who these processes were built for and ask ourselves, should the research paper change?”

Cait Cullen is a former communications officer at IOP Publishing