A New Look at an Old Problem: Improving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Scientific Research

Leveraging the Academic Artificial Intelligence Silecosystem to Advance the Community Oncology Enterprise

Over the last 75 years, artificial intelligence has evolved from a theoretical concept and novel paradigm describing the role that computers might play in our society to a tool with which we daily engage. In this review, we describe AI in terms of its constituent elements, the synthesis of which we refer to as the AI Silecosystem. Herein, we provide an historical perspective of the evolution of the AI Silecosystem, conceptualized and summarized as a Kuhnian paradigm. This manuscript focuses on the role that the AI Silecosystem plays in oncology and its emerging importance in the care of the community oncology patient. We observe that this important role arises out of a unique alliance between the academic oncology enterprise and community oncology practices. We provide evidence of this alliance by illustrating the practical establishment of the AI Silecosystem at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and its team utilization by community oncology providers.

The measurable impact of a diversity, equity, and inclusion editor on diversifying content, authorship, and peer review participation in the Journal of Vascular Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Women and minorities remain under-represented in academic vascular surgery. This under-representation persists in the editorial peer review process which may contribute to publication bias. In 2020, the Journal of Vascular Surgery (JVS) addressed this by diversifying the editorial board and creating a new Editor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The impact of a DEI editor on modifying the output of JVS has not yet been examined. We sought to determine the measurable impact of a DEI editor on diversifying perspectives represented in the journal, and on contributing to changes in the presence of DEI subject matter across published journal content.

METHODS

The authorship and content of published primary research articles, editorials, and special articles in JVS were examined from November 2019 through July 2022. Publications were examined for the year prior to initiation of the DEI Editor (pre), the year following (post), and from September 2021 to July 2022, accounting for the average 47-week time period from submission to publication in JVS (lag). Presence of DEI topics and women authorship were compared using χ² tests.

RESULTS

During the period examined, the number of editorials, guidelines, and other special articles dedicated to DEI topics in the vascular surgery workforce or patient population increased from 0 in the year prior to 4 (16.7%) in the 11-month lag period. The number of editorials, guidelines, and other special articles with women as first or senior authors nearly doubled (24% pre, 44.4% lag; P = .31). Invited commentaries and discussions were increasingly written by women as the study period progressed (18.7% pre, 25.9% post, 42.6% lag; P = .007). The number of primary research articles dedicated to DEI topics increased (5.6% pre, 3.3% post, 8.1% lag; P = .007). Primary research articles written on DEI topics were more likely to have women first or senior authors than non-DEI specific primary research articles (68.0% of all DEI vs 37.5% of a random sampling of non-DEI primary research articles; P < .001). The proportion of distinguished peer reviewers increased (from 2.8% in 2020 to 21.9% in 2021; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a DEI editor to JVS significantly impacted the diversification of topics, authorship of editorials, special articles, and invited commentaries, as well as peer review participation. Ongoing efforts are needed to diversify subject matter and perspective in the vascular surgery literature and decrease publication bias.

Inequity in Peer Review in Communication Sciences and Disorders

PURPOSE

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by retaining and advancing Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) individuals in the discipline of communication sciences and disorders (CSD), amid critical shortages of faculty to train the next generation of practitioners and researchers. Publishing research is central to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of faculty. However, inequity in peer review may systematically target BIPOC scholars, adding yet another barrier to their success as faculty. This viewpoint article addresses the challenge of inequity in peer review and provides some practical strategies for developing equitable peer-review practices. First, we describe the demographics of ASHA constituents, including those holding research doctorates, who would typically be involved in peer review. Next, we explore the peer-review process, describing how inequity in peer review may adversely impact BIPOC authors or research with BIPOC communities. Finally, we offer real-world examples of and a framework for equitable peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

Inequity at the individual and systemic levels in peer review can harm BIPOC CSD authors. Such inequity has effects not limited to peer review itself and exerts long-term adverse effects on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of BIPOC faculty in CSD. To uphold ASHA's commitment to DEI and to move the discipline of CSD forward, it is imperative to build equity into the editorial structure for publishing, the composition of editorial boards, and journals content. While we focus on inequity in CSD, these issues are relevant to other disciplines.