Skip to main content

ISMTE / Editorial Boards and Diversity

Published onFeb 08, 2022
ISMTE / Editorial Boards and Diversity

Introduction 

Many journals are grappling with the need to improve the diversity of their editorial boards but finding obstacles that prevent achieving that goal. These obstacles tend to be based on outmoded processes that fail to fully recognize the vast pool of researchers and academics who can do more than bring a diverse presence to an editorial board – they can improve the journal overall by bringing fresh ideas, new approaches, and a more realistic cross-section of the world. 

This case study details how the Endocrine Society tackled the issue with an Editorial Board Restructure program, the challenges uncovered, the successes enjoyed, and the results to date. 

The Endocrine Society is a global community of physicians and scientists dedicated to accelerating scientific breakthroughs and improving patient health and well being. It publishes four journals: The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism; Endocrinology; Journal of the Endocrine Society; and Endocrine Reviews. The first three publish original research and the fourth publishes comprehensive review articles. 

Issue 

The Endocrine Society (ES) has known for many years that the journal editorial boards did not reflect its diverse membership or the scientific community. The processes in place to improve the situation, however, were not strong enough to create change. Starting in 2018, the ES Publications Core Committee (PCC) initiated a multi-year process to improve the diversity of its journal editorial boards. Three areas were identified for improvement: gender balance, global distribution, and ethnic / racial diversity. 

Goals 

The three goals were specifically designed to (1) create editorial boards that are 50% female and 50% male, with adjustments as needed to accommodate non-binary members; (2) recruit at least two editorial board members from each major global region; and (3) work to achieve better balance in ethnic / racial diversity. 

Parameters 

Before starting the Editorial Board Restructure process, the selection process operated without specific metrics. Here’s a description of the Editorial Board selection process before 2018: 

  • The ES journal editorial boards have traditionally been large – 100 members or more for each journal – although statistics showed that varying proportions of the editorial board members were not used. The editorial boards are distinct from our Editors (Editor-in-Chief (EIC), Deputy Editors, and Associate Editors) in that they do not sign agreements with ES and they don’t have to be members of ES. They are not the only manuscript reviewers; the ES journals maintain a large reviewer pool of non-editorial board reviewers. 

  • Before the diversification project began, the names of potential new editorial board members were submitted to the ES PCC by the EIC for approval before invitations were sent by the EIC. If the PCC decided that the submitted list needed more diversity, they asked for more names or suggested names to be added. No metrics were applied to this process and there was no enforcement or tracking. 

The PCC Editorial Board Restructure process introduced the following changes: 

  • The process was designed and overseen by a PCC Working Group, which gave a broader perspective than any single EIC could provide. It also relieved the EICs of having to design methods to meet the goals individually for their journals. All EICs welcomed this opportunity to shift some of the responsibility of selection and oversight away from the individual journal. 

  • The PCC took on the responsibility of making certain that new editorial board members understand the requirements of the position. The PCC also now provides the oversight needed to determine if an editorial board member needs to be asked to step down due to poor performance. The EICs were particularly relieved to pass this responsibility to the PCC. 

  • The sizes of the editorial boards were reduced to allow better oversight and to make certain that all involved had an active experience. With this change we largely eliminated the issue of having editorial board members whose only participation was having their name on the masthead. 

  • Metrics: Instead of asking the EICs simply to submit their list of potential new editorial board members to the PCC, they were given the task of submitting the names of people who would help achieve the stated demographic goals. For the first year, the goal was to improve gender balance; the second year, global distribution was woven in while maintaining gender balance. The result was that the EICs submitted much more diverse lists for approval. The application of specific metrics was critical. 

  • After the list of names was approved, the invitations were sent based on the need to meet balance, NOT to fill a specific number of slots. Instead of the invitations being signed by the EIC only, the signature of the PCC Chair was added as a way to stress the new oversight hierarchy. 

Challenges 

It’s critical that journals considering an editorial board restructure process to improve diversity have EIC agreement. Without that, it will stall. Another potential roadblock is if the editorial board is the journal’s only source of reviewers. In that case, other approaches might be needed.  

Key to increasing diversity is moving away from the idea that an editorial board must have a specific number of members. If an EIC insists on a large editorial board, even if there’s an available pool of non-editorial board reviewers, then it would be worthwhile to look at the performance statistics of the editorial board. If there’s a high proportion of editorial board members who never review or do so infrequently, it’s important to decide what the role of the editorial board is: is it there to provide a CV opportunity or is it there to foster excellent reviewing processes? 

As outlined above, part of the editorial board oversight and structural determination shifted from the EICs to the PCC. While we had no pushback during the process, it’s possible that more traditionally entrenched editors would balk.  

Gender Balance 

The first goal – to improve gender balance - was simple to track because at this point we’re still using a binary approach. This will change moving forward and we’ll adjust our process to accommodate those who identify as non-binary.  

Global Distribution 

The second goal of improving global distribution turned out to be less straight-forward. The Editorial Board Restructure Working Group selected nine large regions and three specific countries for a total of twelve regions. Determining which countries belonged to which regions, however, was more of a task than expected because there’s no single authorized list that gives the same information. In the end we employed several lists to determine how 200 countries should be classified.  

The nine regions are Africa, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Central America and the Caribbean, Eastern and Southern Europe, Middle East, North America, South America, and Western and Northern Europe. The three specific countries are China, India, and Japan. 

Racial / Ethnic Balance 

  • Defining what constitutes an appropriate list of races and ethnicities is extremely difficult. At this time we’ve been unable to locate an authoritative, globally used list. 

  • While it’s generally easy to determine gender and location without contacting the potential editorial board member, accurately determining their race or ethnicity without their input is not possible. 

  • Privacy matters are a concern, which is why race / ethnicity is usually not a required field in forms. In a political and social environment that is highly intrusive and at times violent, it is understandable why people would want to protect as much of their personal information as possible. 

Our current thought on approaching this issue is to rely on the editors and current editorial board to suggest people they know who can improve the number of underrepresented minorities on the editorial boards. Using the same method of applying metrics as we did with the first two goals won’t be possible with the third goal, but we are working to find a way to ensure that better diversity is achieved. 

Outcomes 

Below are the outcomes of improving the gender balance and global diversification of the journal editorial boards during the restructure period: 

Journal 1 

Gender Balance 
2019 Editorial Board: 45% female, 55% male 
2020 Editorial Board: 63% female, 37% male 
2021 Editorial Board: 55% female, 45% male 

Global Distribution 
2019:  6 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 
2020:  9 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 
2021:  9 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 

Journal 2 

Gender Balance 
2019 Editorial Board: 40% female, 60% male 
2020 Editorial Board: 49% female, 51% male 
2021 Editorial Board: 48% female, 52% male 

Global Distribution 
2019: 6 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 
2020: 8 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 
2021: 8 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 

Journal 3 

Gender Balance 
2019 Editorial Board: 38% female, 62% male 
2020 Editorial Board: 45% female, 55% male 
2021 Editorial Board: 45% female, 55% male 

Global Distribution 
2019:  7 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 
2020:   8 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 
2021:   7 out of 12 regions with 2 or more editorial board members 

Next Steps 

When the 2022 editorial board selection process begins in the fall of 2021, we’ll focus on maintaining and/or improving the gender balance and global distribution metrics. By then, we hope to have a better approach to insuring the inclusion of underrepresented minorities. 

 This project has been enormously rewarding. The enthusiasm and talent of the new editorial board members added through the additional outreach is striking, and the collaboration with the EICs brings fresh energy to the journals.  

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?