Editor Diversity at
Springer Nature Journals
A 2023 benchmarking report on diversity of our academic editors
Foreword
As a leading research publisher, Springer Nature is committed to ensuring that our publishing programmes reflect the research communities we serve. The world of science and research is evolving, becoming increasingly global and diverse. We have seen major shifts in where research is produced, in particular China outpacing western nations by both output and quality.
A truly inclusive publishing landscape should represent all communities, globally and across multiple dimensions of diversity. That’s why inclusivity is part of our strategy: if we are to address the world’s most urgent societal challenges, we must be representative of global research.
This is particularly relevant when it comes to our decision-makers. Springer Nature supports more than 100,000 academic editors across our portfolio, spanning every discipline, and every corner of the world. These editors play a critical role in ensuring their journals foster inclusive publishing practices and represent their communities.
We know that to facilitate change, we must first understand our current demographics. This is why we have released our first benchmarking report, examining our editors’ geographic and gender diversity. While we have ambitions to report on a much broader set of diversity characteristics, our goal was to begin with what was immediately available to us, including self-reported geographic data, and assumed gender for the full spectrum of our journals.
This initial data reaffirm what we know to be true across the industry. Editorial decision-makers are not fully representative of the diverse research community they serve, and there is much more we need to do to address this. The scale of the challenge is significant for a publisher of our size, but we are actively supporting our editors in diversifying their journals. Our most recent cohort of newly recruited editors is more representative of regional diversity, and our Scientific Reports case study shows the positive impact of inviting increasing numbers of women to become editors.
By sharing what we are learning we aim to inform, inspire, and drive forward action across the industry. That’s why we continue to invest in DEI research, data, and resources, such as our 2023 report on researcher perceptions and experiences, and our DEI in Research Publishing hub.1 We have also compiled examples of editorial best practices as part of this report. Moving ahead, we will continue to track our progress towards greater inclusiveness, reviewing insights and making recommendations for action. Our goal is to create a publishing landscape that is representative, inclusive, and truly reflects the global and diverse nature of scientific research.
Ritu Dhand
Chief Scientific Officer
Springer Nature
Executive summary
This report provides an initial benchmarking analysis of editor diversity at Springer Nature, a community of over 100,000 academic editors, including Editors-in-Chief (EICs) and other editors for a group of approximately 3,000 Springer Nature journals. It provides a view of the geographic and assumed gender distribution across Springer Nature’s large network of academic editors.
Geography2
Most editors come from Europe & Central Asia (37.9%), North America (25.3%), and East Asia & Pacific (25.9%).
- The top three countries contributing to editors are the United States of America (USA), China, and the United Kingdom (UK).
- The top three countries contributing to EICs are the USA, Germany, and China.
- India is in the top 10 countries for both editors and EICs.
- Representation is low from the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia (with the exception of India), and Latin America & Caribbean.
Gender
Women make up 29% of editors and 22% of EICs.
Representation varies widely by country and discipline.
- For the top ten countries contributing to Springer Nature’s editors, women’s representation is highest for editors from Australia, China, and Italy and lowest in Japan and South Korea.
- For the top ten countries contributing to Springer Nature’s EICs, women’s representation is highest for editors from China, Australia, and the USA and lowest in Japan and Russia.
- Across all subject areas covered by Springer Nature journals, gender balance ranges from over 50% women to 19% women.
- Disciplines such as psychology, linguistics and social science have greater than 40% women editors, whereas women editors range from 25-31% in medicine & public health, life sciences and chemistry. Physics, engineering, and mathematics journals are at the lower end of the range with less than 25% women editors.
The report additionally presents a case study of the geographic and assumed gender diversity among editors on Scientific Reports, the world’s largest journal, comprising over 11,000 editors.
Scientific Reports case study:
Geographic and gender diversity
Women make up 27% of current editors.
- Geographic representation within the Scientific Reports editorial board closely tracks trends for geographic representation across Springer Nature journals.
- Women make up 27% of current editors.
- On average, women are 75% as likely as men to accept an invitation to join the Scientific Reports editorial board, suggesting that simply inviting more women would be an effective strategy to increase women’s participation.
- The average invitation rate for women has increased to 45% in the 2021-2023 period.
These findings are largely consistent with other reports, that although there is increasing geographic diversity among authors and an increasing representation of women in research (which varies by discipline), more work is needed to ensure that editors better represent the global research community. The scale of the challenge is immense for a publisher of Springer Nature’s size and complexity given our multidisciplinary nature. However, we have invested in supporting our editors to increase the diversity of editorial boards and are actively championing the merits of diversifying for journal success. To conclude, our report focuses on examples from across the Springer Nature group, exploring how Springer Nature editors are already building inclusive publishing practices.
Definition: Editors-in-Chief and other editors including editorial board members; this large group is referred to as “editors” throughout the report.
You can help the environment by not printing this PDF unless you really need to. Thank you.
Introduction
The global research community has become increasingly diverse in the last two decades. For example, in the ten-year span from 2010 to 2020, China and India have led in the growth of publication output in science and engineering (at 36% and 9% respectively) compared to relatively lower growth from the USA (at approximately 5%) and other western nations.3 India is now the third largest producer of research output after China and the USA. Recent reports also note China’s dramatic increase in research impact.4, 5, 6
There has also been an increase in women in science over the past two decades. In 2019, women earned 46% of all PhDs in the USA, although there is some notable variation by discipline.7 The ratio of women to men among authors is closer to parity in countries studied for the five years from 2014 to 2018, compared to the period from 1999 to 2003.8
The changing demographics of global research output are reflected in Springer Nature’s submissions and publications. For example, today, nearly one-third of submissions to Springer Nature journals come from China, and China contributes significantly more to Springer Nature’s publications output than a decade ago. However, while the research community has diversified, there is insufficient editor diversity on journal boards, with the least diversity among EICs.9, 10 For example, a study exploring the geographic representation of editors in environmental biology found 98% of EICs were based in high-income countries, and 67% of all editors were based in either the USA or the UK.11 Reports from industry sources include the diversity of editors by geographic region, finding most representation in the USA and Canada.12, 13
Given the known gender diversity of different fields,14 some underrepresentation of women is expected, yet evidence shows that the gap is even wider among editors. For example, AAAS’s 2023 Inclusive Excellence Report found 26% of editors and advisors in the Science family of journals were women,15 similar to findings from IOP Publishing16 and the Royal Society of Chemistry.17 A study on the representation of women editors in medical journals found just one in five EICs were women,18 while another meta-research study examining authors across more than 6,000 journals found the gender gap is particularly large in surgery, computer science, physics, and mathematics.19 In psychology and neuroscience, fields with a high representation of women graduates, there is still a notable disparity, with 43% women EICs compared to 57% men.20
A lack of editor diversity presents significant challenges. Underrepresentation of editors from non-western countries is one example of disparities prevalent in the publishing landscape, impacting familiarity and recognition of regional novelty.21, 22 Studies have also found evidence for gender-based “homophily” (a tendency to associate with similar others) in researcher collaboration networks and in peer review that cannot be explained by the numeric representation of women in a given field.23, 24 The underrepresentation of women as editors is also noted to deterring women from participating in science.25 A recent Nature editorial further shows that not only are fewer women submitting their research to Nature, but that there is also a slightly lower acceptance rate.26 Given the responsibility editors have in decision-making, understanding the current profile of journal editors will allow us to assess how increasing diversity can support a more equitable and inclusive publishing environment for all.
Methodology
This current benchmarking report aims to provide an initial assessment of Springer Nature’s editor diversity, representing a community of over 100,000 editors across approximately 3,000 journals. A portfolio of this magnitude presents a significant challenge to consolidate and analyse data across journals.
Although self-reported data is acknowledged to be the gold standard for benchmarking, gender for all records, and geography for 24% of editors, is assumed using third-party software.
Recent findings confirm that such assumed gender algorithms can overestimate women’s representation,17 and as such can only provide a partial indication of our current diversity. Indeed, in undertaking this report, we have found that different tools will generate varied outcomes for the same set of records.
Despite this limitation, the methodology represents the best mechanism for producing a baseline without self-reported data. A summary of our collection methods, analysis, and confidence levels can be found in the Appendix.
Geographic distribution of
Springer Nature
editors and EICs
Most editors come from Europe & Central Asia, North America, and East Asia & the Pacific.
Overall, there is a similar distribution for editors and EICs, with lower EIC representation across Latin America, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
The USA represents the majority of both editors and EICs. China has the second-highest number of editors, and third-highest number of EICs.
Gender
distribution of
Springer Nature
editors and EICs
Women make up 29% of editors and 22% of EICs; representation varies widely by country and discipline.
Gender distribution within the top ten countries contributing to Springer Nature’s editors
Gender distribution within the top ten countries contributing to Springer Nature’s EICs
For the top ten countries contributing to Springer Nature’s editors, women’s representation is highest from editors from Australia, China, and Italy and lowest for those from Japan and South Korea. Of the top ten countries by number of EICs, there is the greatest representation of women in China and the least in Russia and Japan. However, several countries in the top 10 have significantly low numbers of women EICs: only in China and the USA do the numbers of women EICs exceed 100. As such, the noted differences should be viewed with caution. Further, a known limitation with assumed gender algorithms is lower confidence for Asian names, and the variance shown here may be inflated.27
There is gender variance by individual disciplines
Some gender variance by discipline is to be expected, based on the known population sizes of women researchers in these fields.28 Across all subject areas covered by Springer Nature journals, gender balance ranges from over 50% women to 19% women. Psychology and social science journals with 47% and 41% women editors respectively are at the higher end, whereas medicine & public health and life sciences with 31% and 28% respectively are in the middle of the range. Physics and mathematics journals with 21 and 19% respectively are at the lower end of the range.
Gender distribution of editors across subject areas covered by Springer Nature journals
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports is a notable example to look at within Springer Nature’s portfolio, given its size and multidisciplinary nature. As such, its community is constantly evolving. Chief Editor, Rafal Marszalek, notes that diversity requires a very strategic approach in this context:
“Our academic editors are the representatives for the journal, so if the composition of our board does not reflect the community, this can have an impact when it comes to our content. Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that the board represents both our readership and authorship. Yet for a journal like Scientific Reports, where the profile of our community is affected by the rapidly changing demographics of the global research community, planning for editorial board recruitment and representation is a challenge. Setting a benchmark for editor diversity can help us set concrete goals in the future, which can be field- and geography-specific."
Rafal Marszalek, Chief Editor, Scientific Reports
The data included in this report represent 11,249 records for active editors in November 2023, along with a review of ten years’ invitation data (nearly 49,000 invitations). The analysis uses different gender analysis software to the main Springer Nature report, as well as different criteria for exclusion. More information on the data and methodology is available in the Appendix.
Geography
Three regions each contribute nearly a third to the Scientific Reports editorial board: Europe & Central Asia, North America and East Asia & Pacific.
By country, the USA makes up the largest proportion (29%), comprising nearly all North American editors. China makes up 11% of all editors.
Comparing the distribution of editors against Scientific Reports' author data for 2023, the representation of editors is broadly in line with the journal’s current author community, with the exception of the USA. China’s contribution to submissions and published output at Scientific Reports' has grown in line with its increasing contribution to the overall research output. Alongside, the journal has increased the representation of editors and this remains an ongoing commitment to better reflect China’s contribution to the research landscape.
Proportion of all authors and editors coming from the top five countries among authors
Gender
Women make up 27% of editors.
Gender distribution across geographic regions of Scientific Reports editors
The representation of women among current editors shows some geographical variation, but there are different base sizes in each population; Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Middle East & North Africa and Latin America & Caribbean jointly contribute only 8% of total editors. For the largest categories by geography, the most notable gender variance is the higher representation of women in North America and Europe & Central Asia, compared with East Asia & Pacific.
Women are 75% as likely as men to accept an editorial board invitation
Acceptance rates of women relative to men by region
The team also reviewed invitations sent over ten years from 2013 to 2023. There has been a continued shift during this period in the make-up of invitations sent to editors. For example, these shifts reflect changes in author disciplines, and geographic trends. From 2021 to 2023, the average invitation rate for women was 45%, compared with 35% looking at all invitations from 2013 to 2023.
A look at acceptance rates of invitations sent to women over these ten years shows that on average, women are 75% as likely as men to accept an invitation to join the Scientific Reports editorial board. Where geographic data is available, we can also look at the distribution of invited editors across regions. Within this subset, women are on average 82% as likely as men to accept an invitation to join the editorial board. This behaviour holds true across regions, with the exception of Latin America and Caribbean.
Percentage of women among invited and current editors for the top five countries among current editors
Among Scientific Reports’ top five countries by editor representation, the percentage of women editors tracks closely with the percentage of women among invitees. In other words, the gender makeup of editors across regions largely reflects Scientific Reports’ volume of invitations sent to men vs. to women to these regions over the ten years.
Looking ahead
Our results are consistent with other reports,9, 10 finding that the decision-makers in publishing are less diverse than the author communities they represent. The regional overrepresentation in the Global North in our editor community is comparable to other publisher benchmarking reports.12, 13, 16, 17 We are actively working to change this imbalance. Self-reported data from newly recruited editorial board members at Springer Nature over the past 16 months show that nearly 20% were from China, 9% were from India and 23% overall were women. An intentional approach to recruitment has successfully improved gender balance at our Communications series of journals with an aggregate 44% of women across all journals. Taking a strategic focus on editor recruitment based on the changing patterns of authorship is starting to make our editorial communities more representative.
Given the potential impacts of underrepresentation on editorial decision-making, we must continue to increase representation from across the globe. Although industry data confirm that there are lower volumes of publications from the Middle East, Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America & Caribbean,29 increasing representation from these regions will help support increased contributions from researchers in these regions, help identify contributions with regional significance, and diversify our reviewer pool.
Gender disparity among our editors globally is also consistent with reports from industry peers with large multidisciplinary journal portfolios.30 Data from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics indicate that the percentage of women researchers globally stood at approximately 31.7% in 2021.28 Studies looking at publications and authorship similarly put the global mean percentage for women’s authorship at 30.9%.31 As noted in the introduction, there are variations by country and by discipline; for example, in most countries, women authors are more highly represented in health and life sciences but poorly represented in the physical sciences, and men typically outnumber women as corresponding or last authors.8 We have also seen this latter pattern within Springer Nature journals.26 Representation of women in Springer Nature’s editor community broadly tracks these country and disciplinary trends, with increasing imbalance within the EIC group, which typically draws from a smaller pool of more senior researchers.
Across the publishing industry, there needs to be a strategic effort to attract more women to decision-making roles. As our Scientific Reports case study shows, women are accepting invitations nearly as often as men, across most regions. Therefore, if we want to increase the proportion of women editors from a given region, inviting more women from that region would seem to be a promising strategy.
Springer Nature is invested in women’s progress in science and with that in mind, we have undertaken a number of initiatives, ranging from our commitment to gender balance at Nature Conferences to our awards supporting women in STEM and technology.32 We know that we have to continue to sustain our focus to be able to move the needle.
Championing diversity
Change can be challenging, but investing in recruitment and actively seeking out diversity in our editorial recruitment is critical. Here we share examples of how our EICs have embraced diversifying editorial boards and peer reviewers, making their journals an inclusive home for global research, and the positive impact of these actions.
npj Clean Water
“If you have only viewpoints from elite perspectives, you might solve problems that don’t exist, or propose solutions that don’t address problems that do exist. With half the world’s population in China and India, and with the research we publish in npj Clean Water being of such high relevance to this region, we felt that it was critical to engage more actively with these research communities.”
Professor Bhekie Mamba, npj Clean Water
npj Clean Water’s Editor-in-Chief describes how the journal expanded representation on the journal’s editorial board, from China and the Global South.
Current Psychology
“If the journal is to provide a representation of what is happening in psychology on a global scale, then authors, reviewers, and editors from all regions must be encouraged and welcomed. This is how good science happens — when all voices are listened to.”
Jesus Alfonso D. Datu, Kara Sage, Lauren S. Seifert, Benjamin Rosenberg, F. Richard Ferraro. Current Psychology
The editors of Current Psychology have taken multiple steps to enhance diversity, firstly by inviting authors from under-represented countries to become reviewers, then to join the editorial board, and eventually to become Associate Editors or Section Editors.
International Journal of Primatology
“Those who are disadvantaged by this system have less experience of the publishing process and of reviewing. They’re less likely to become an editor themselves…this in turn impoverishes our discipline because the more voices we hear from, the better we can understand primates.”
Professor Joanna M. Setchell, International Journal of Primatology
Professor Joanna M. Setchell recognised that the author community for the International Journal of Primatology, as with many disciplines, was inequitable. To combat this, the journal appointed Associate Editors from each major geographical region where primates or primatologists are found and expanded the editorial board to ensure it reflects the geographic and gender diversity of their current author community.
How Springer Nature supports editors
Springer Nature is committed to our global community of editors and editorial board members. We value their dedication and do all we can to support them with tools, training, services, and the latest updates needed to thrive in their roles.
From investing in the diversification of our editorial boards to supporting them in their journey as editor, we help address the greatest challenges - allowing our editors to focus on publishing the best research and being a champion for their journal.
We are actively helping build inclusive publishing among our editors through our new DEI in Research Publishing hub. Editors can explore best practices, diversity strategies and their benefits, and resources for addressing unconscious bias and building awareness of the changing global research community. This collection of DEI-focused resources and insights will inform, inspire, and support our editors to take action.
Appendix
Methodology
Springer Nature is committed to our global community of editors and EICs, excluding internal editors from Nature Portfolio and other Springer Nature imprints where relevant. The dataset includes over 100,000 editors and all EICs. As a constantly updated data source, this represents a snapshot of approximately 3,000 journals in 2023.
A vendor was selected for gender analysis, based on an initial pilot. The gender identity inference algorithm works by comparing names to a database of over 1 billion names which is further refined when geographic data is known, as inferences can then consider regional variations in the use of names across genders and weight the likely gender inference accordingly. There are many noted pitfalls with using gender prediction algorithms.33 We acknowledge a notable limitation is that the tool does not allow recognition of non-binary or genderfluid identities. Past analysis has also shown that the algorithm works best on European and North American names as more underlying data is available in these regions, improving confidence levels. The confidence levels for the Springer Nature data were 89% for the editor dataset and 95% for the EIC dataset.
Countries were mapped against World Bank regions.34 In most instances, the data was captured internally and is considered self-reported. For EICs, all geography is self-reported, while for editors, self-reported geography was available for most records (76%). The remaining editor records were matched against other internal sources, such as author data records and geographic email domains. For 16.5k records, assumed gender was added, with an estimated accuracy of 82%. For 4.3k records, it was not possible to assume geography and these were therefore excluded from any analysis of geography.
Scientific Reports
The Scientific Reports editorial board data represents a snapshot taken in November 2023. The total dataset analysed was 11,249 editor records. For invitees, data from 2013 to January 2023 totalling 48,946 records was used.
Geography is classified according to World Bank groupings. All current editor data is based on internal records and can be considered self-reported. For invitees, geography was available for 80% of records. Records without geography information were not excluded from the gender-only analyses.
Gender data is assumed for all records using Gender API,35 used in other similar reports, with research suggesting the tool performs well, particularly for Asian names.36 For current editors, the tool was able to assign gender to 10,441 (93%) of the names with an accuracy of at least 60%. The tool's accuracy confidence for most records was 98-99%, but a 60% threshold was selected by the team to eliminate outliers where accuracy fell closer to 50%. For invitees, gender was assigned to 45,276 names (93% of the dataset) with an accuracy of at least 60%.
For both the main analysis and the Scientific Reports case study, no manual checks on individual data points were conducted due to the volume of records.
Get the information and inspiration you need to be a DEI champion, and to make your journal inclusive, welcoming, and representative.
Authors
Celia Fuhr
Senior Business Analyst,
Springer Nature
Claire Jones
Senior Marketing Manager,
Springer Nature
Keerti Singh
Senior Business Analyst,
Springer Nature
Rucha Kapare
Global Head of External Diversity Equity Inclusion – Data, Springer Nature
Biz Turnell
Senior Editor
Springer Nature
Sowmya Swaminathan
Director, External DEI, Research, Springer Nature
Mithu Lucraft
Senior Consultant,
TBI Communications
How to cite the report
Springer Nature (2024, April). Editor Diversity at Springer Nature Journals:
a 2023 benchmarking report on diversity of our academic editors.
https://stories.springernature.com/journal-editor-diversity
References
(Links open in a new window)
1 https://www.springernature.com/gp/editors/resources-tools/dei-for-editors.
2 Countries were mapped against World Bank regions. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html
3 National Science Board, National Science Foundation. 2022. Science and Engineering Indicators 2022: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering. NSB-2022-1. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221 "Cf. 7.
4 Adams J., Fry R., Pendlebury D., Potter R., and Rogers G.. Clarivate (2023) China’s research landscape. Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/lp/Chinas-research-landscape/.
5 Brainard, J., & Normile, D. (2022, August 17). China rises to first place in most cited papers. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/china-rises-first-place-most-cited-papers.
6 Baker, S. (2023, May 19). China overtakes United States on contribution to research in Nature Index. Nature Index. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01705-7.
7 National Science Board, National Science Foundation. 2022. Higher Education in Science and Engineering. Science and Engineering Indicators 2022. NSB-2022-3. Alexandria, VA. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20223/
8 De Kleijn, M., Jayabalasingham, B., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Collins, T., Kuiper-Hoyng, L., Cingolani, I., et al. (2020). The Researcher Journey Through a Gender Lens: An Examination of Research Participation, Career Progression and Perceptions Across the Globe. (Elsevier, March 2020). https://assets.ctfassets.net/zlnfaxb2lcqx/5qhYSRWFvH4w3ULiVAbtS5/a2e26aef48b8ada2cd401efc06e08867/Elsevier-gender-report-2020.pdf.
9 Lerback, J., & Hanson, B. (2017). Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature, 541, 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/541455a.
10 Liu, F., Rahwan, T., & AlShebli, B. (2023). Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13), e2215324120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215324120.
11 Espin, J., Palmas, S., Carrasco-Rueda, F., Riemer, K. et al.. A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology. PLoS Biology, 15(12), e2002760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002760.
12 https://pubsdiversity.acs.org/data/2023/index.html
13 AIP Publishing. (2023). Diversity and Inclusion at AIP Publishing. https://publishing.aip.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/DEI-booklet_102023-vr4.pdf
14 UNESCO (2024) The gender gap in science: status and trends, February 2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388805.locale=en.
15 AAAS (2023) Inclusive Excellence Report https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/DEI-2023-Report-Layout_FINAL-FOR-NEUPDATED-FOOTERS_508EDIT.pdf? adobe_mc=MCMID%3D21363134587834584192733644917833029181%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1707300906.
16 IOP Publishing. (2018). https://ioppublishing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/J-VAR-BK-0818-PRW-report-final.pdf
17 RSC. (2022.) Diversity Data report https://www.rsc.org/globalassets/02-about-us/corporate-information/our-diversity-data/rsc-diversity-data-report-2022.pdf
18 Pinho-Gomes, A.-C., Vassallo, A., Thompson, K., Womersley, K., Norton, R., & Woodward, M. (2021). Representation of women among editors in chief of leading medical journals. JAMA Network Open, 4(9), Article e2123026. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23026
19 Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology, 16(4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956
20 Palser, E.R., Lazerwitz, M. & Fotopoulou, A. (2022). Gender and geographical disparity in editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience 25, 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01012-w
21 Amarante, V., Burger, R., Chelwa, G., Cockburn, J., Kassouf, A., McKay, A., & Zurbrigg, J. (2022). Underrepresentation of developing country researchers in development research. Applied Economics Letters, 29(17), 1659-1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.1965528
22 Tindle, R. (2021). Improving the global reach of psychological research. Discover Psychology 1, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-021-00004-4
23 Wang, Y. S., Lee, C. J., West, J. D., Bergstrom, C. T., & Erosheva, E. A. (n.d.). (2023). Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283106
24 Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Research: Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife, 6, e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718
25 Liu F., Holme P., Chiesa M., AlShebli B., & Rahwan, T. (2022). Gender inequality and self-publication are common among academic editors. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01498-1
26 Nature Editorial. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00640-5
27 Lockhart, J. W., King, M. M., & Munsch, C. M. (2023). Name-based demographic inference and the unequal distribution of misrecognition. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1084–1095. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01587-9
28 UNESCO (2024) The gender gap in science: status and trends, February 2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388805.locale=en
29 Dimensions, 2024. https://www.dimensions.ai/
30 Making progress towards a more inclusive research ecosystem, Elsevier 2022, https://www.elsevier.com/connect/inclusion-diversity-board-report.
31 Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Lariviere, Equity for Women in Science. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674919297.
32 Investing in a gender equal research future - International Women’s Day 2024. https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/springboard/blog/blogposts-sustainability-inclusion/investing-in-a-gender-equal-research-future/26829234
33 Lockhart, J. W., King, M. M., & Munsch, C. L. (2023). Computer algorithms infer gender, race and ethnicity. Here’s how to avoid their pitfalls. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02225-0
34 The World by Income and Region. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html
35 Gender API. https://gender-api.com/
36 Sebo, P. (2021). Performance of gender detection tools: A comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. Journal of the Medical Library Association. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1185
37 Nature Editorial. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00640-5
38 Investing in a gender equal research future - International Women’s Day 2024. https://www.springernature.com/gp/advancing-discovery/springboard/blog/blogposts-sustainability-inclusion/investing-in-a-gender-equal-research-future/26829234
39 Lockhart, J. W., King, M. M., & Munsch, C. L. (2023). Computer algorithms infer gender, race and ethnicity. Here’s how to avoid their pitfalls. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02225-0
40 The World by Income and Region. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html
41 Gender API. https://gender-api.com/
42 Sebo, P. (2021). Performance of gender detection tools: A comparative study of name-to-gender inference services. Journal of the Medical Library Association. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1185
Built with Shorthand