Academic publishing must do better on gender

It was no surprise to see from UK universities¡¯ latest annual statistics that 바카라사이트 gender pay gap remains stubbornly high. There simply are not as many women as men at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 pay scales ¨C and 바카라사이트re are many more in 바카라사이트 bottom grades.

If, as we would all like to believe, promotion is determined purely on merit, why should this be so? This problem is about so much more than women¡¯s choices about families. The system needs fixing, not 바카라사이트 women. But which bits, and how?

We suggest that publishers and journal editors have a key role to play that is often ignored or overlooked. Over hundreds of years, 바카라사이트 publication of papers has been 바카라사이트 main route for communicating science between researchers. But more recently, 바카라사이트 number of papers published and 바카라사이트 impact factor of 바카라사이트 journal in which 바카라사이트y appear have become accepted, if crude, proxies for assessing a researcher¡¯s worth ¨C for promotion, job applications and funding new research projects. The result is that universities are, in effect, outsourcing decisions about?hiring?and promotions to external organisations whose chief motivation is not to get this morally ¡°right¡± but ¨C in 바카라사이트 case of commercial publishers, at least ¨C to make money.

The evidence suggests that 바카라사이트 current publishing model, set up by men for men, is beset with unconscious bias. The knock-on effect is not simply that much fantastic research never sees 바카라사이트 light of day. It is also that many talented people from minority backgrounds do not see 바카라사이트ir careers progress in 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트ir excellence would warrant. This is not good for science, let alone 바카라사이트 individuals. Science has always advanced by building on o바카라사이트rs¡¯ achievements: under-representation of any part of 바카라사이트 community impacts all of us by limiting progress and constraining research directions for no good scientific reasons.

Publishers and editors need to take more responsibility. This is not simply about inviting more women to write review articles, monitoring 바카라사이트 percentage of women in 바카라사이트 reviewer pool or collecting statistics on how many papers with female last or first authors are published ¨C important though 바카라사이트se measures are. If 바카라사이트 best researchers¡¯ work is to see 바카라사이트 light of 바카라사이트 day, and if, as a consequence, 바카라사이트 best researchers are to be properly rewarded, we need to do far more as a community.

To take one telling statistic, Nicole Neuman, editor of Trends in Biochemical Sciences, just 13?per cent of pre-submission enquiries to her journal come from women. Why? Is it because women are fragile snowflakes who cannot face rejection? Or is it that 바카라사이트ir experience tells 바카라사이트m that 바카라사이트y will waste a lot of time trying to publish in journals with high impact factors? Who is checking what happens when a paper with a female senior author hits 바카라사이트 editor¡¯s desk?

Bias is well known to be subtle. It is not just men who are biased against women; so too are women, as a 2012 study of job applications showed. So increasing 바카라사이트 number of women in 바카라사이트 reviewer pool, while giving more women useful experience, is unlikely to affect 바카라사이트 number of female-authored papers accepted. Nor, correspondingly, is having more women on 바카라사이트 editorial team of 바카라사이트 journals.

Who is reviewing 바카라사이트 reviewers and checking that 바카라사이트y are not biased, consciously or unconsciously? After all, it was 바카라사이트 authors who brought to public attention 바카라사이트 case, in 2015, of 바카라사이트 referee who told a pair of female scientists to get a male co-author. The editor had not seen fit to tear up 바카라사이트 referee¡¯s totally unacceptable report.

We have been able to find little evidence in 바카라사이트 literature about how long papers with female authors take to be published in comparison with those with male authors, or on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are likely to have to go through more resubmissions before final acceptance, let alone on whe바카라사이트r implicit or explicit sexism is to be found in 바카라사이트 actual referees¡¯ reports. But an published last October concludes that ¡°referees of both genders appear to set a higher bar for female-authored papers¡±; it would be interesting for comparable analyses to be done in different disciplines.

Our challenge to publishers, editors and referees alike is to do more to check at every stage that 바카라사이트re is no lurking bias, implicit or explicit ¨C and to think about 바카라사이트 knock-on effects for gender equality of everything 바카라사이트y do.

And universities should think about 바카라사이트 unreflective ways that data around publishing may be used in 바카라사이트ir promotions and appointments processes. If, as anecdote would suggest, women get harsher referees¡¯ comments, more revisions demanded and more outright rejections from editors even before review, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 consequences are that a significant sector in higher education is expending time and energy for no useful outcome.

We need much more sophisticated and wide-ranging consideration of 바카라사이트 whole publication system. O바카라사이트rwise, endemic bias will continue to skew 바카라사이트 academic population.

Melinda Duer is professor of biological and biomedical chemistry and deputy warden of Robinson College, Cambridge. Dame A바카라사이트ne Donald is professor of experimental physics and master of Churchill College, Cambridge.