Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations

A framework for decolonising and diversifying biomedical sciences curricula: rediscovery, representation and readiness

To date, most efforts to decolonise curricula have focussed on the arts and humanities, with many believing that science subjects are objective, unbiased, and unaffected by colonial legacies. However, science is shaped by both contemporary and historical culture. Science has been used to support imperialism, to extract and exploit knowledge and natural resources, and to justify racist and ableist ideologies. Colonial legacies continue to affect scientific knowledge generation and shape contemporary research priorities. In the biomedical sciences, research biases can feed into wider health inequalities. Reflection of these biases in our taught curricula risks perpetuating long-standing inequities to future generations of scientists. We examined attitudes and understanding towards decolonising and diversifying the curriculum among students and teaching staff in the biomedical sciences at the University of Bristol, UK, to discover whether our current teaching practice is perceived as inclusive. We used a mixed methods study including surveys of staff (N = 71) and students (N = 121) and focus groups. Quantitative data showed that staff and students think decolonising the curriculum is important, but this is more important to female respondents (P < 0.001). Students are less aware than staff of current efforts to decolonise the curriculum, while students from minority ethnic groups feel less represented by the curriculum than white students. Thematic analysis of qualitative data revealed three themes that are important for a decolonised curriculum in our context: rediscovery, representation and readiness. We propose that this '3Rs framework' could guide future efforts to decolonise and diversify the curriculum in the biomedical sciences and beyond.

Gender, Racial, and Academic Authorship Diversity in the Otolaryngology Clinical Trial Literature

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the state and trajectory of gender, racial, and academic authorship diversity in the otolaryngology clinical trial literature over the past 2 decades.

STUDY DESIGN

Bibliometric analysis.

SETTING

Otolaryngology clinical trial literature.

METHODS

Clinical trials published in the 9 major otolaryngology journals between 2000 and 2020 were included. The gender, race, and academic seniority of the first, senior, and corresponding authors were recorded for each trial. Multivariable regression models assessed the temporal trajectory of authorship diversity over time and the disparity in citations across author characteristics. Models adjusted for relevant confounders pertaining to publication environment and study design.

RESULTS

Among 2117 trials, first, senior, and corresponding authors have been predominantly White (60%-64%), male (76%-80%), and attending physicians (63%-69%). Trials led by Black (<1%) and Hispanic (<5%) authors were severely underrepresented. Over time, the representation of female (adj. β 0.8%, 95% CI [0.5%, 1.1%] per year), Asian (1.0% [0.7%, 1.3%] per year), and MD resident (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%] per year) first authorship increased, but representation of female (0.2% [-0.1%, 0.5%] per year), Black (0% [-0.03%, 0.02%] per year), Hispanic (-0.2% [-0.33%, -0.02%] per year) senior authorship remained persistently low. Asian-led trials were cited significantly less compared to White-led trials even after adjusting for study design and publication year (aIRR 0.82 [0.73, 0.92]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite promising signs of improving authorship diversity over time, persistent underrepresentation of female, Black, Hispanic senior authorship underscore the need for additional efforts to diversify the otolaryngology clinical science workforce.

Cultural distance, gender and praise in peer review

Background: Understanding review comments holds significant importance within the realm of scientific discourse. This study aims to conduct an empirical analysis of factors associated with praise in peer review.Methods: The study involved manual labeling of "praise" in 952 review comments drawn from 301 articles published in the British Medical Journal, followed by regression analysis.Results: The study reveals that authors tend to receive longer praise when they share a cultural proximity with the reviewers. Additionally, it is observed that female reviewers are more inclined to provide praiseConclusions: In summary, these discoveries contribute valuable insights for the development of a constructive peer review process and the establishment of a more inclusive research culture.

Recommendations to promote fairness and inclusion in biomedical AI research and clinical use

OBJECTIVE

Understanding and quantifying biases when designing and implementing actionable approaches to increase fairness and inclusion is critical for artificial intelligence (AI) in biomedical applications.

METHODS

In this Special Communication, we discuss how bias is introduced at different stages of the development and use of AI applications in biomedical sciences and health care. We describe various AI applications and their implications for fairness and inclusion in sections on 1) Bias in Data Source Landscapes, 2) Algorithmic Fairness, 3) Uncertainty in AI Predictions, 4) Explainable AI for Fairness and Equity, and 5) Sociological/Ethnographic Issues in Data and Results Representation.

RESULTS

We provide recommendations to address biases when developing and using AI in clinical applications.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations can be applied to informatics research and practice to foster more equitable and inclusive health care systems and research discoveries.

Strategies for advancing inclusive biodiversity research through equitable practices and collective responsibility

Biodiversity research is essential for addressing the global biodiversity crisis, necessitating diverse participation and perspectives of researchers from a wide range of backgrounds. However, conservation faces a significant inclusivity problem because local expertise from biodiversity-rich but economically disadvantaged regions is often underrepresented. This underrepresentation is driven by linguistic bias, undervalued contributions, parachute science practices, and capacity constraints. Although fragmented solutions exist, a unified multistakeholder approach is needed to address the interconnected and systemic conservation issues. We devised a holistic framework of collective responsibility across all research participants and tailored strategies that embrace diversity and dismantle systemic barriers to equitable collaboration. This framework delineates the diverse actors and practices required for promoting inclusivity in biodiversity research, assigning clear responsibilities to researchers, publishers, institutions, and funding bodies. Strategies for researchers include cultivating self-awareness, expanding literature searches, fostering partnerships with local experts, and promoting knowledge exchange. For institutions, we recommend establishing specialized liaison roles, implementing equitable policies, allocating resources for diversity initiatives, and enhancing support for international researchers. Publishers can facilitate multilingual dissemination, remove financial barriers, establish inclusivity standards, and ensure equitable representation in peer review. Funders must remove systemic barriers, strengthen research networks, and prioritize equitable resource allocation. Implementing these stakeholder-specific strategies can help dismantle deep-rooted biases and structural inequities in biodiversity research, catalyzing a shift toward a more inclusive and representative model that amplifies diverse perspectives and maximizes collective knowledge for effective global conservation.

How to be an effective ally

Inclusivity in biomedical research provides many positive attributes, including increased productivity, higher creativity, and improved wellness for all. While marginalized individuals work tirelessly to achieve equity and inclusion, this task should not be left solely to those most affected by exclusionary tactics. These individuals and the organizations with whom they are affiliated would benefit from the support of an ally. An ally is defined as a person or organization that actively supports the rights of a marginalized group without being a member of it. Allies have a unique opportunity to play a pivotal role in promoting fairness, equity, and inclusion, and thus serve as positive change agents within an organizational setting. We summarize here the importance of being an effective and dynamic ally and offer guidance on how to achieve that goal.

Disparities in funding for Nobel Prize awards in medicine and physiology across nationalities, races, and gender

Since 1901, the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine has been awarded to numerous individuals for their outstanding contributions. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the Nobel Prize recipients, focusing on gender, race, and nationality. We observe that an alarming disparity emerges when we examine the underrepresentation of Black scientists among Nobel laureates. Furthermore, trends in nationalities show how Americans make up the majority of Nobel Prize winners, while there is a noticeable lack of gender and racial minority winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Together, this highlights the importance of diversity and inclusion in scientific achievement. We offer suggestions and techniques, including funding opportunities and expanding nominators, to improve the gender, racial, and geographical diversity of Nobel Prizes.

Fostering student authorship skills in synthetic biology

Women and racial minorities are underrepresented in the synthetic biology community. Developing a scholarly identity by engaging in a scientific community through writing and communication is an important component for STEM retention, particularly for underrepresented individuals. Several excellent pedagogical tools have been developed to teach scientific literacy and to measure competency in reading and interpreting scientific literature. However, fewer tools exist to measure learning gains with respect to writing, or that teach the more abstract processes of peer review and scientific publishing, which are essential for developing scholarly identity and publication currency. Here we describe our approach to teaching scientific writing and publishing to undergraduate students within a synthetic biology course. Using gold standard practices in project-based learning, we created a writing project in which students became experts in a specific application area of synthetic biology with relevance to an important global problem or challenge. To measure learning gains associated with our learning outcomes, we adapted and expanded the Student Attitudes, Abilities, and Beliefs (SAAB) concept inventory to include additional questions about the process of scientific writing, authorship, and peer review. Our results suggest the project-based approach was effective in achieving the learning objectives with respect to writing and peer reviewed publication, and resulted in high student satisfaction and student self-reported learning gains. We propose that these educational practices could contribute directly to the development of scientific identity of undergraduate students as synthetic biologists, and will be useful in creating a more diverse synthetic biology research enterprise.

The Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex

Research focused on health disparities-whether relating to one's race/ethnicity, gender expression, sexual orientation, citizenship status, income level, etc.-constitutes a large, generative, and highly profitable portion of scholarship in academic, clinical, and government settings. Health disparities research is expressed as a means of bringing greater attention to, and ultimately addressing via evidence-based implementation science, acts of devaluation and oppression that have continually contributed to these inequities. Philosophies underlying health disparities research's expansive and growing presence mirror the formal logic and ethos of the Military Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex. The "Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex," operationalized in this article, represents a novel mutation and extension of these complexes, primarily being enacted through these three mechanisms: 1) The construction and maintenance of beliefs, behaviors, and policies in healthcare, and society more broadly, that create and sustain disadvantages in minority health; 2) the creation and funding of research positions that inordinately provide non-minoritized people and those without relevant lived experiences the ability to study health disparities as "health equity tourists"; and 3) the production of health disparities research that, due to factors one and two, is incapable of fully addressing the disparities. In this piece, these and other core elements of the Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex, and the research bubble that it has produced, are discussed. Additionally, strategies for reducing the footprint and impact of the Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex and better facilitating opportunities for meaningful implementation in the field are presented.

Advancing equity in cross-cultural psychology: embracing diverse epistemologies and fostering collaborative practices

Psychology, and cross-cultural psychology (CCP) in particular, plays a pivotal role in understanding the intricate relationship between culture and human behavior. This paper sheds light on the challenges of inequity and marginalization, especially concerning scholarship from the Global South, which have roots in historical colonial practices. It highlights how intellectual extractivism and the predominance of Western research methodologies often overlook the contributions of Global South scholars and indigenous ways of knowing. Such imbalances risk narrowing the scope of psychological inquiry, privileging American and European perspectives, and undermining the richness of global human experiences. This paper calls for a shift toward more equitable collaborations and the recognition of diverse epistemologies. By advocating for genuine representation in research and valuing local knowledge, it proposes pathways for a more inclusive and authentic exploration of human behavior across cultures.

Psychology needs more diversity at the level of Editor-in-Chief

There are racial, gender, and geographical disparities for editors-in-chief in psychology. This is a problem, and many counter arguments are not persuasive. It is time for the field – and in the power of individuals - to implement suitable measures to make change happen.

Health Equity and Policy Considerations for Pediatric and Adult Congenital Heart Disease Care among Minoritized Populations in the United States

Achieving health equity in populations with congenital heart disease (CHD) requires recognizing existing disparities throughout the lifespan that negatively and disproportionately impact specific groups of individuals. These disparities occur at individual, institutional, or system levels and often result in increased morbidity and mortality for marginalized or racially minoritized populations (population subgroups (e.g., ethnic, racial, social, religious) with differential power compared to those deemed to hold the majority power in the population). Creating actionable strategies and solutions to address these health disparities in patients with CHD requires critically examining multilevel factors and health policies that continue to drive health inequities, including varying social determinants of health (SDOH), systemic inequities, and structural racism. In this comprehensive review article, we focus on health equity solutions and health policy considerations for minoritized and marginalized populations with CHD throughout their lifespan in the United States. We review unique challenges that these populations may face and strategies for mitigating disparities in lifelong CHD care. We assess ways to deliver culturally competent CHD care and to help lower-health-literacy populations navigate CHD care. Finally, we review system-level health policies that impact reimbursement and research funding, as well as institutional policies that impact leadership diversity and representation in the workforce.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.

Postdoctoral researchers' perspectives on working conditions and equal opportunities in German academia

Postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) are an essential component of the scientific workforce in German universities and research institutions and play a vital role in advancing knowledge and innovation. However, the experiences of postdocs and other early career researchers (ECRs) indicate that working conditions pose a significant challenge to the pursuit of a long-term research career in Germany-particularly for international scientists and those from marginalized groups. We examine how unstable working conditions as well as insufficient structural support for equal opportunities and diversity are significant obstacles for the career development of ECRs in German academia. We discuss these issues with the aid of an extensive survey recently conducted and published by PostdocNet, a target-group network representing the interests of postdocs across Germany's Max Planck Society. The survey drew responses from 659 postdoctoral researchers working at the Max Planck Society and represents one of the few datasets of postdoctoral researchers' perspectives in Germany. Building on these findings, we suggest actions at governmental, institutional, and individual levels to improve the working conditions of postdoctoral researchers in Germany.

Tackling the lack of diversity in cancer research

Despite the clear benefit of studying biological samples from diverse genetic backgrounds and geographical locations, our current knowledge of disease is mostly derived from the study of European-descent individuals. In the cancer field, this is reflected in the poor representation of African and Amerindian/Latino samples in most large public data repositories. This lack of diversity is due to several reasons, but here we focus on (1) the lack of support for studies on non-European populations that are performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and (2) unequal partnerships between scientists in LMICs and those in high-income countries. We argue that expanding access to research funding, increasing the participation of underrepresented scientists in editorial boards and international conferences, facilitating the publication of studies conducted in these countries, and properly acknowledging LMIC researchers' contributions in publications and grant applications will promote equity for scientists working in LMICs. We envisage that this will translate to more impactful research in these countries, which will include more samples from diverse populations. For the cancer field, this will broaden our understanding of pathomechanisms and may help to improve the treatment of patients from all backgrounds.

Gender and racial differences in first and senior authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trial studies from 2000 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Females and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the first and senior authorships positions of academic publications. This stems from various structural and systemic inequalities and discrimination in the journal peer-review process, as well as educational, institutional, and organizational cultures.

METHODS

A retrospective bibliometric study design was used to investigate the representation of gender and racial/ethnic groups in the authorship of critical care randomized controlled trials in 12 high-impact journals from 2000 to 2022.

RESULTS

In the 1398 randomized controlled trials included in this study, only 24.61% of the first authors and 16.6% of the senior authors were female. Although female authorship increased during the study period, authorship was significantly higher for males throughout (Chi-square for trend, p < 0.0001). The educational attainment [χ²(4) = 99.2, p < 0.0001] and the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ²(42) = 70.3, p = 0.0029] were significantly associated with gender. Male authorship was significantly more prevalent in 10 out of 12 journals analyzed in this study [χ²(11) = 110.1, p < 0.0001]. The most common race/ethnic group in our study population was White (85.1% women, 85.4% males), followed by Asians (14.3% females, 14.3% males). Although there was a significant increase in the number of non-White authors between 2000 and 2022 [χ²(22) = 77.3, p < 0.0001], the trend was driven by an increase in non-White male and not non-White female authors. Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with the country of the author's affiliated institution [χ²(41) = 1107, p < 0.0001] but not with gender or educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent gender and racial disparities in high-impact medical and critical care journals underscore the need to revise policies and strategies to encourage greater diversity in critical care research.