Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishingiopscience.org

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

2

IOP Publishing

Executive summary 3

1. Introduction 5

PeerreviewatIOPPublishing–howdowedoit? 6

2. Methodology 8

3. Results 10

Authors 10

– Genderdiversityofauthors 10

– Geographicaldiversityofauthors 13

Reviewers 15

– Genderdiversityofreviewers 15

– Geographicaldiversityofreviewers 16

EditorialBoardmembership 18

– GenderdiversityofBoardmembership 18

– GeographicaldiversityofBoardmembership 19

4. Recommendations 21

Providingguidanceforreviewers 21

Trainingforpeer-reviewstaffonaddressingbiasinpeerreview 21

TrainingBoardMembersonimplicitbiasandreviewerselection 21

BuildingmorediverseandinclusiveEditorialBoards 21

Advisingauthorstoconsiderdiversityandinclusionwiththeirreviewersuggestions 22

Invitemorewomentoreview 22

RelylessonreviewersfromtheUSandEurope 22

EarlyCareerResearcherReviewerRecruitmentprogramme 22

AdditionofMxtitleonsubmissionsystem 22

Remindertoreviewerstoupdatetheiruseraccount 22

EncourageauthorsandreviewerstosignupforORCID 23

Considerdouble-blindreviewonmoreofourjournals 23

Creationofaninternaldiversityandinclusionstatementonpeerreview 23

5. Limitations 24

6. Conclusions 25

7. References 26

8. Appendix 29

A:Whichjournalsareincludedinthedataset? 29

B:IOPPublishingDiversityandInclusionstatementforpublishingandproduction 30

– Guidingprinciples:publishingandproductionservices 30

– Ourgoals 30

– Continuousimprovement:aproactiveapproachtodiversityandinclusion 30

– Governance 30

Contents

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

3

IOP Publishing

Webelievethatourcontributorsshouldreflectthediversityofthephysical-sciencescommunity,andwerecognisethatthereareinequalitieswithinpeerreviewacrossthescience,technology,engineeringandmathematics(STEM)subjects.Weacknowledgethatdiversityleadstobetterscience,inlinewiththeInstituteofPhysics’aimtoadvancephysicsforthebenefitofall.

ThisreportcapturesthecurrentstateofdiversityandinclusionwithinpeerreviewatIOPPublishing,basedonthedatathatwehaveavailable,comparedtorelatedliterature.Usinggenderandgeographicaldataonourauthors,reviewersandEditorialBoardMembersbetween2014and2018,weidentifyopportunitiesforimprovementandposequestionsthatgobeyondthecapabilitiesofthisreport.

Weareaheadofthegeneralglobaltrendforfemaleauthorshipinphysics,with22%ofourpapersacceptedforpublicationbeingfromwomen,comparedtoaglobalaverageofjust17%in2016.WomenaregenerallywellrepresentedonourEditorialBoards,mostnotablyinenvironmentalsciences,astrophysicsandgeneralphysics.

Whiletherearesuccesses,weacknowledgethattherearestillseveralareastobeaddressed:•Overall,paperswithfemalecorrespondingauthorshaveaslightlylowerchanceofbeing

accepted•AuthorsfromtheUSandEuropearemorelikelytohavetheirpapersacceptedthan

authorsfromChinaorIndia•Malereviewersareinvitedmorefrequentlythanfemale•Thereisanover-representationofinvitedreviewersfromtheUSandEurope•OlderjournalstendtohavelessdiverseEditorialBoards•Thereisanunder-representationofEditorialBoardMembersfromChinaandIndia

Wearecommittedtodiversityandinclusion,andthisreportsetsoutanumberofrecommendationsbothforIOPPublishingandthewiderphysicscommunitytohelpacceleratethepaceofchangewithregardtogenderandgeographicalrepresentation.TheInstituteofPhysicshasastrongDiversityProgrammewiththeaimofcultivatinganinclusive,sustainable,diverseandvibrantphysicscommunity.Justrecentlyworld-renownedastrophysicistandformerPresidentoftheInstituteofPhysics,ProfessorDameJocelynBellBurnellhasannouncedthatshewilldonatewinningsfromherBreakthroughPrizeinFundamentalPhysicstotheInstitutefortherunningofgraduatestudentshipsforpeoplefromunder-representedgroups.WehopethatthroughthisreportandourrecommendationsthatwewillbeabletosupporttheInstituteinitsmissiontocreateamorediverseandinclusivephysicscommunity.SomeexamplesincludebuildingmorediverseEditorialBoards,trainingstaffandEditorialBoardMembersonimplicitbias,andinvitingmorewomentoreview.

Executive summary

4

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Welookforwardtobeingchangeagentsforbetterdiversityandinclusionwithinpeerreviewandthebroaderphysicscommunity,andencourageotherresearchers,societiesandbusinessesengagedwithpeerreviewtojoinusinourmissiontocreatepositivechange.

ThisprojectwasledbyKimEggletonofIOPPublishing,withconsiderablesupportfromBethanDavies,ChrisWileman,JasonWotherspoon,FrédériqueSwist,AlisonTovey,AlisonGardinerandEmilyHeming.WethankmembersoftheIOPPublishingleadershipteamfortheircontributionsandguidanceinthecreationofthisreport,inparticularAntoniaSeymourandMarcGillett.WealsothankJeniDyerandAngelaTownsendfromtheInstituteofPhysicsfortheirinspirationandsupportinourdiversityandinclusionmission.Forfurtherinformation,pleasee-mailpublishing@iop.org.

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

5

IOP Publishing

Diversityandinclusionleadstobetterscience,aswelldocumentedbyscholars(MedinandLee,2012;FreemanandHuang,2015;BearandWilliamsWoolley,2011).Itispartofourroleaspublisherstoensurethatanyoneproducingscientificallyrigorousworkshouldbeassessedindependentlyoftheiridentity,socio-economicoreducationalbackground.Withthe2018ofPeerReviewWeekthemebeingDiversityandInclusion,wetookthedecisiontothoroughlyanalysehowweweredoingagainstouraimstobetrulyimpartialandrepresentativeinpeerreview.

ArecentpaperbyHolman,Stuart-FoxandHauser(2018)discussedthegendergapacrosstheSTEMworkforce.Theyfoundthattopicssuchasphysicshadthefewestwomenauthorsandwereshowinglittlesignsofgrowth(figure1,p6).Theauthorspositanumberofpotentialreasonsforthis,includingthesuggestionthatmale-dominatedfields,suchasphysics,attractfewerwomengraduates,andtheproblemsofthe“leakypipeline”(womenaremorelikelythanmentoleaveSTEMcareersbeforeprogressingtoseniorpositions).Naturealsoreportedanunder-representationofwomenasbothauthorsandreviewersin2018(Nature,2018).

Wewerekeentoseehowourauthorshipdatacompared–wouldwebeaheadofthe17%offemaleauthorshipidentifiedbyHolman,Stuart-FoxandHauser(2018)in2016,andwhatactionscouldwetaketoimprovetheratesoffemalerepresentationinthephyscialsciences?

Genderwasn’ttheonlydemographicthatwewereinterestedinstudying.Weworkwithauthors,reviewersandEditorialBoardMembersfromallovertheworld,andpreviousstudieshaveshownthatthereisoftenapositivebiastowardsresearchfromtheUSandEurope(Pinholster,2016;King,2004;andEspinet al.,2017).Wewerecurioustounderstandifthatwasthecaseonourownjournals,andifthereviewersandEditorialBoardMembersthatwewereusingwererepresentativeoftheglobalphysicscommunity.

Thisreportexplainsthecurrentpeer-reviewpracticesatIOPPublishingandlooksatthegenderandgeographicaldataonourauthors,reviewersandEditorialBoardMembers.ItalsoprovidesseveralrecommendationsforIOPPublishingandourcommunitiestobetterrepresentthediversityanddifferencesthatmakeupthephysicalsciences.

1. Introduction

6

IOP PublishingDiversityandInclusioninPeerReviewatIOPPublishing

Peer review at IOP Publishing – how do we do it?Peerreviewhasbeenatthecoreofscientificresearchforseveralhundredyears,andisthemeansbywhichresearchisjudgedandassessedtoensurethatitmeetsthestandardsforpublication.Whilstdebateragesaboutthevariousmethodsofpeerreviewandwhichisthe“best”,peerreviewisstilldeemedessentialtoensuringthatonlypapersthatarescientificallyvalidmakeittopublication.Traditionally,peerreviewisconductedbyatleasttwooftheauthor’speers,sometimesanonymously,whoprovidecritiqueoftheresearchandsuggestionsforimprovement.Itiscommonforreviewerstooutrightrejectpapersorrequirethatnumerousrevisionsaremadebeforepapersareacceptedforpublication.

IOPPublishingisascientificpublisherandasubsidiaryoftheInstituteofPhysics,anon-profitmembershipsocietyworkingtoadvancephysicsforthebenefitofall.Wepublishmorethan50ofourownjournals,aswellasadditionaltitlesonbehalfofsocietypartners.Wealsopublishbooks,conferenceseriesandmagazines.

Figure 1. 2016authorgenderratioforphysicssubdisciplines,itsrateofchangeperyear,andtheestimatednumberofyearsuntilthegenderratiocomeswithin5%ofparity(Holman,Stuart-FoxandHauser,2018)

authorposition

physics educationexperiment

instrumentation and detectorsmedical physics

space physicsbiological physics

popular physicschemical physics

atmospheric and oceanic physicsmaterials sciencesuperconductivity

accelerator physicsgeophysics

othersoft condensed matter

opticsphysics and society

atomic and molecular clustersdisordered systems and neutral networksdisordered systems and neutral networks

mesoscopic systems and quantum hall effectmesoscopic systems and quantum hall effecthistory of physics

atomic physicsphenomenology

unspecifiedplasma physics

strongly correlated electronscomputational physics

fluid dynamicsstatistical mechanics

classical physicsdata analysis; statistics and probability

latticequantum gassesgeneral physics

theory

first

last

single

overall

% women authors in 2016authors in 2016

change in % women change in % women authors per yearauthors per year

years until parity

0 10 20 30 40 –1 01 0 1 2 3 0 25 50 75 100

7

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

AtIOPPublishingweprideourselvesonahighstandardofpeerreviewacrossallourjournals.Articlesareonlysentouttoreviewersiftheypassinitialdeskchecks,whichincludemakingsurethearticleisunderstandable,inthestyleofascientificarticleandwithinthescopeforthejournal.Wealsorunallnewsubmissionsthroughplagiarism-checkingsoftware,toensurethatreviewers’timeisn’twastedonarticlesthatareunsuitableforpublication.Researchpapersaretypicallysenttotwoindependentreviewerswhoareaskedtoreportonthequality,scientificrigour,noveltyandsignificanceofthepaper.Reviewersareselectedfromourdatabasebyourteamofexperiencedin-houseeditors,andwetrytofindthebestcombinationofscientificexpertiseandexperienceforeachpaper.Reviewersarecheckedforconflictsofinterest,andwetypicallyfindourselvesinvitingbetween5–8reviewersperpapertogettworeviewerstoreport(IOPPublishing,2018a).

Ourreviewerdatabaseismadeupofpreviousauthorsandreviewers,aswellasauthor-suggestedreviewers,andreviewersthataddthemselvesvoluntarilyviathesubmissionsystem(ScholarOneManuscriptsTM).Wealsouseatool(ReviewerLocator)inoursubmissionsystemtohelpusidentifypotentialreviewersifwecannotfindanyonesuitableinourowndatabase.ThistoolsearchesWebofScienceandreturnstheresultsofpeoplethathaveauthoredrelatedworkinthepast.

IOPPublishingjournalsareinternationalinbothauthorshipandreadership,andweaimtogiveunbiasedconsiderationtoallmanuscriptsofferedforpublicationregardlessofwhetherornottheauthorsrequestpublicationonanopenaccessbasis,andregardlessoftherace,gender,religiousbelief,ethnicorigin,location,citizenship,politicalphilosophy,sexualorientation,ageorreputationoftheauthors.

ThemajorityofIOPPublishingjournalsoperateasingle-blindpeer-reviewsystem,wheretheidentitiesofthereviewersareconcealedtotheauthors,butthereviewerscanseetheauthoridentities.In2016,wesurveyedourcontributorcommunitiesandestablishedthattherewasasmallbutsignificantappetitefordouble-blindreview(IOPPublishing,2016).Assuch,in2017,webeganofferingauthorstheoptionofsingle-ordouble-blindreviewontwoofourjournals,Biomedical Physics and Engineering ExpressandMaterials Research Express.Sincethen,wehaveseenanaverageof20%ofauthorschoosethedouble-blindroute,withmostauthorswhotookuptheoptionreportingthattheysawitasfairerthansingle-blind(InPublishing,2018).Otherstudieshavealsoreportedthatdouble-blindisperceivedtomitigateinequities(Murrayet al.,2018;Kmietowicz,2008).

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

8

IOP Publishing

AtIOPPublishingweonlycollectthedatathatwerequirefromourauthors,reviewersandEditorialBoardMembers,whichdoesnotincludegender,age,race,religionetc.Theonlydatathatwehaveonourcontributorsaretheirname,e-mail,institutionandcountry,andanysubmission,publicationorreviewingrecordthattheyhavewithourownjournals(seeAppendixA,p29).Thisdataisallheldsecurelyonoursubmissionsystem(ScholarOneManuscriptsTM).Webeganusingthissystemduring2013,soforthepurposeofthisreportweareanalysingdatafrom2014tothepresentday(August2018).

Accountswithinthedatabaseareusuallycreatedbytheusersthemselves,thereforeanydatarelatingtoinstitution,countryortitleisself-reported.Occasionally,accountsarecreatedbyotherusers,whomayberegisteringaco-authororsuggestedreviewer.Wedonotactivelymonitoranyaccountstokeepthemuptodate.

Asgenderisnotrecorded,weelectedtousetheGenderizeAPI(https://genderize.io/)tohelpusassigngendertoauser’sfirstname.Thegenderdatahasbeenkeptseparatelyfromouruseraccountsandnogenderdatahasbeenstoredagainstanyofourusers.Ourcontactdatabasecontainsapproximately640,000contactswithfirstnames.Wewereabletoassigngenderstojustover421,000(66%)ofthecontactsdatabaseusingGenderize.Thisnumberfallsto256,000(40%)whenweapplycertaintylimitstotheassigningofthegenders.Theresultinggenderspiltofourcontactdatabase(includingcertaintylimits)is79%maleand21%female.

2. Methodology

Figure 2. GendercompositionofIOPPublishing’sauthorandreviewercontactsdatabase,August2018

female 21%male 79%

9

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

USA 20%

China 17%

Germany 7%

Japan 4%

India 4%

Brazil 2%

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

2%

Australia 2%

Canada 2% Spain 2%

theNetherlands

1%Taiwan

1%Switzerland

1%Poland

1%

Sweden 1%

Mexico 1%

Portu... 1%

Denm... 1%

Malay... 1%

CzechRep...

1%Rom...

0%

Paki... 0%

Nor... 0%

Arge... 0% Ukr... Hu...

T... Sl... Sl... T...

C... C... A..

C.

C...

B... B...

B... K...

V...

N... E... I...

I...

I.. V..

J... J..

I...

•••

M..

Alg... Sa...

Chi...

So...

Ne...

Ser...

Austria 1%

Israel 1%

Finland 1%

Greece 0%

Egypt 0%

Hong...0%

Ire... 0%

Turkey 1%

Belgium 1%

Singapore 1%

Korea (Republic of) 3%

Italy 3%RussianFederation 2%

UK 6% France 5%

Figure 3. GeographicalcompositionofIOPPublishing’sAuthorandReviewerContactsDatabase,August2018

ScholarOne Manuscripts TM database geographic distribution

AllcontactsinourdatabasemustbelinkedtoacountryfromtheofficialISOListofCountryNamesandCodeElements(ISO3166-1).Figure3showsthecountofentriesonourdatabasebycountryatAugust2018.

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

10

IOP Publishing

AuthorsIOPPublishingreceivesthousandsofsubmissionseveryyearfromauthorsacrosstheglobe.Manypapersarewrittenbygroupsofauthors,butforthepurposesofthisreportwearejustlookingatthecorrespondingauthorforeachpaper,asincludingallco-authordatawouldleadtoincreasedweightingforthosearticleswithmultipleauthors.Authoraccountswithinthedatabaseareusuallycreatedbytheauthorsthemselves,thereforeanydatarelatingtoinstitution,countryortitleisself-reported.

Gender diversity of authorsThegendersplitofsubmittedarticles(2014–2018)is22%femaleand78%male(figure4),andverysimilartoouroveralldatabasedemographics(figure2,p8).ThisishigherthanHolman,Stuart-FoxandHauser(2018)found,whichispromising.Wehaveseenaslowincreaseinsubmissionsfromfemalecorrespondingauthorssince2014,withapeakin2018YTDat27%ofsubmissionscomingfromfemalecorrespondingauthors(figure5).Thenumberofacceptedarticlesforfemalecorrespondingauthorsfollowsthesamepattern,althoughthereisaconsistentdifferenceof1%everyyearbetweensubmissionsandaccepts,withthisgapgrowingconsiderablyin2018.Giventheaveragelengthoftimearticlesspendinthepeer-reviewprocessmedian(81daysin2018–IOPPublishing,2018b),wemayseethisgaplessenbytheendoftheyear/early2019.

3. Results

Figure 4. TheoverallgendersplitforsubmissionstoIOPPublishingjournals,2014–2018

Figure 5. Developmentpercentagesofsubmissionswhicharefromfemaleandmaleleadauthorsoverthelastfiveyears(2018dataisuptoAugust)

female 22%

male 78%

male submissionsmale accepts

female submissionsfemale accepts

78% ± 2%

2014

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

2015 2016 2017 2018

73% ± 1%

81% ± 1%

80% ± 1%

27% ± 1%

22% ± 2%

20% ± 1%

19% ± 1%

What is the gender split in IOP submissions?PercentageofsubmissionstoIOPwhicharefrommaleandfemalecorrespondingauthors

How has the gender composition of submissions and accepts changed?Submissionssplitbymaleandfemalecorrespondingauthors

11

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Thisledustolookattheprobabilityofbeingacceptedforfemaleormalecorrespondingauthors.Paperswithmalecorrespondingauthorshaveacceptratesof43%,comparedtofemalecorrespondingauthorswhohaveacceptratesof40%(figure6).Otheranalyseshavealsofoundlowersuccessratesforfemaleauthoredpapers(Murrayet al.,2018;WennerasandWold,1997);however,itmustbestressedthatwedonotknowthereasonforthis.Thecausecouldbethattheoverallsenioritydifferssignificantlybetweenthegenderswiththedeclineoffemaleresearchersasseniorityincreases(the“leakypipeline”).Giventhatweusemostlysingle-blindpeerreview,itcouldalsobearguedthatreviewersandeditorsaremoreinclinedtoacceptpapersfrommoreseniorfacultybelievingthemtobehigherquality,despiteresearchthatsuggestscareeragenegativelyaffectsthequalityofwork(EbadiandSchiffauerova,2016).

Despitefemaleauthorshipincreasingacrossourbroadportfolio,wewereinterestedtoseeifthereweredifferencesbetweenthesubdisciplinesofphysicalsciencesthatIOPPublishingcovers.OuranalysisshowsthatfemalecorrespondingauthorshipisincreasinginalmosthalfofIOPPublishing’ssubjectareas(figure7),inlinewithglobaltrendsreportedbyUNESCO(UNESCO,2018)andElsevier(Elsevier,2017).ThelowestfemaleparticipationinIOPPublishingsubmissionsisinastrophysics,educationandgeneralphysics.

Figure 6. Theprobabilityofanarticlebeingacceptedwhenauthoredbyamaleorfemalecorrespondingauthor(95%confidenceintervaldisplayed)

Figure 7. Submissionsbyfemalecorrespondingauthorsoverthelastfiveyearssplitbysubjectarea(thesubject-matterlabelsshowhighesttolowestfor2018alongwith95%confidenceinterval)

39.8% (± 0.8%)

43.0% (± 0.5%)

female

male

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

40%

20%

0%

environment 39% (± 6%)biophysics 32% (± 3%)materials 30% (± 2%)atomic, molecular and optical physics 29% (± 5%)measurement 23% (± 5%)plasma 18% (± 6%)mathematics 17% (± 3%)general physics 14% (± 3%)astrophysics 11% (± 4%)education 9% (± 5%)

Does the chance of having an article accepted differ for men and women?

Female proportion of submissions articles over timePercentageofsubmittedarticlesfromfemaleleadauthorsindifferentfields

Percentageofarticlesacceptedformaleandfemalecorrespondingauthors

12

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Similarpatternscanbeseenwhenlookingatacceptedarticles(figure8),withthelowestproportionofacceptedarticlesfromfemalecorrespondingauthorsbeingingeneralphysics,astrophysicsandeducation.Biophysicsistheanomalyinthesefigures,asthedatasuggeststhatwhilesubmissionsfromfemalecorrespondingauthorswasontheincreaseuntil2018,thenumberofacceptedarticlesfromfemalecorrespondingauthorsstartedtodeclineearlierin2017.

Figure7(p11)andfigure8alsoallowustocomparetheacceptanceratesbysub-discipline.Inthisrespect,wecanseethatfiveofthesubjectshavealoweracceptancerateforfemaleauthorscomparedtomale,withbiophysics,education,environmentandmathematicsbeingconsistentwithequalprobabilitiesforeachgenderatthe95%confidencelevel.However,inastrophysics,wherethereappeartobemarginallyhigherchancesforfemalecorrespondingauthorstobeacceptedthanmales(figure9).

Figure 8. Acceptsbyfemalecorrespondingauthorsoverthelastfiveyearssplitbysubjectarea(thesubject-matterlabelsshowhighesttolowestfor2018alongwith95%confidenceinterval)

Figure 9. Thedifferenceinacceptanceratesbetweenmaleandfemaleauthorsforthedifferentsubjectareas(errorbarsshow95%confidenceinterval)

0%2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

40%

20%

environment 40% (± 8%)

biophysics 26% (± 5%)materials 26% (± 3%)

atomic, molecular and optical physics 28% (± 8%)

measurement 25% (± 8%)

plasma 13% (± 7%)

mathematics 18% (± 5%)

general physics 12% (± 4%)astrophysics 12% (± 6%)

education 5% (± 7%)

15%

high

er m

ale

acce

ptan

ce ra

tehi

gher

fem

ale

acce

ptan

ce ra

te –5%

10%

–10%

–15%

astr

ophy

sics

biop

hysi

cs

educ

atio

n

envi

ronm

ent

gene

ral p

hysi

cs

mat

eria

ls

mat

hem

atic

s

mea

sure

men

t

plas

ma

5%

0%

atom

ic, m

olec

ular

and

op

tical

phy

sics

Female proportion of accepted articles over timePercentageofacceptedarticlesfromfemaleleadauthorsindifferentfields

How do acceptance rates differ among gender and field?Thedifferenceinacceptanceratesbetweenmaleandfemalecorrespondingauthors

13

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Geographical diversity of authorsThegeographicalfaceofauthorshiphaschangedsignificantlyinthelastfiveyears,withatraditionalWestern(USAandEurope)ledmajoritybeinggraduallyovertakenbytheboomingEasterneconomiesofChinaandIndia(figure10).

ThesameistrueforIOPPublishing’sjournals,withthedifferencesinacceptedarticlesinjustthelastfiveyearsbecomingquitepronounced(figure11).

Figure 10. Scienceandengineeringarticlesbyglobalshareofcountry,2006–2016(NationalScienceBoard,2018)

Figure 11. AcceptedarticlesforChina,India,theUKandtheUS,2014–2018(geographydeterminedbyinstitutionofcorrespondingauthor)

2006

USA

other developing

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EU

Japan other developed

China India

S&E articles, by global share of selected region, country or economy: 2006–16

3%

2014

USA

2015 2016 2017 2018

30%

20%

10%

0%

UKChina India

23

%

11

%

23

%

11

%

26

%

10

%

29

%

9%

9%

4%

4%

8%

24

%

11

% 9%

4%

10

%

4%

11

%

Percentage of total accepts per year

14

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

USA 10%China 25%

Brazil 2%

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 4%

Australia 1%

Canada 2%

Spain 2%

Taiwan 1%

Switzerland1%

the Netherlands 1% Sweden 1%

Poland 1%Turkey 1%

Italy 3%

RussianFederation 2%

France 3%

India 9%

Japan 3%

Germany 4%

UK 4%

Korea (Republic of) 3%

USA 16%China 17%

Brazil 1%

Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1%

Australia 2%

Canada 2%

Spain 2%

Switzerland 1%

the Netherlands1% Sweden 1%

Poland 1%

Taiwan 1%

Italy 3%

Russian Federation 2%

France 4%

India 5%

Japan 4%

Germany 8% UK 6%

Korea (Republic of) 3%

Figure 13. Acceptsbycountryofcorrespondingauthor,2014–2018

Submission lead authors

Accepts lead authors

Figure 12. Submissionsbycountryofcorrespondingauthor,2014–2018

15

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Figures12and13(p14)showtheoverallsubmissionandacceptratesbycountryfrom2014–2018.WhileChinaisresponsibleforthehighestproportionofsubmissionstoIOPPublishingjournalsat25%,itisonlyresponsiblefor17%ofaccepts.Incomparison,theUScontributesonly10%ofsubmissionsandyetisresponsiblefor16%ofallacceptedarticles.ThissupportstheresultsfromtherecenteLifestudy,whichshowedover-representationfortheUS,UKandGermany,whileChinawasunder-represented(Murrayet al.,2018).Asfigure11(p13)shows,morearticlesfromChinaandIndiahavebeenacceptedyearonyearatIOPPublishing,suggestinganimprovementinqualityofresearchoutputfromtheseregions,assupportedbytheliterature(Jia,2017;Xie,ZhangandLaia,2014;HuggettandGoodchildvanHilten,2016).

ReviewersReviewersperformanintegralroleinthepeer-reviewprocessandscientificliteratureonlygrowsthroughparticipationinpeerreview.Reviewersneedtoberepresentativeofthebroadsubjectcommunitytoensurefairreview.Actingasareviewercanalsoleadtorecognitionformeritandpromotion,soitisvitaltotakeaninclusiveapproachwheninvitingreviewers.

Gender diversity of reviewersThereisagrowingbodyofliteraturethatsuggestsnotenoughwomenarebeinginvitedtoparticipateinpeerreview.Womenofallagesareusedlessoftenasreviewerscomparedtotheirmalecounterparts,andproportionallylessthantheirpublicationrecordsshouldsuggest(Fox,BurnsandMeyer,2016;Helmeret al.,2017;LerbackandHanson,2017).Analysisofourowndatabasesupportsthisresearch,andwefindthatdespite21%ofourcontactsdatabasebeingfemale,only15%ofinvitationstoreviewaresenttowomen(figure14).Thisequatestoourmalereviewersbeinginvited4.38timesoverthe2014–2018period,butfemalereviewersonlybeinginvited3.89timesoverthesametimeframe.Wealsofoundthattherewasasmall,butstatisticallysignificant,propensitytoinvitefemaleresearcherstoreviewonlyonce.eLifefoundsimilarresults,withonly21%femalereviewerscomparedto26%offemalecorrespondingauthorship(Murrayet al.,2018).

Figure 14. Reviewerinvitationsbygender,2014–2018

female 15%

overall invites overall agreed

male 85%

female 14%

male 86%

Figure 15. Likelihoodtoacceptaninvitationtoreview,bygender,2014–2018

female26.4% (± 0.4%)

male26.6% (± 0.2%)

Reviewer invitations by genderPercentageofinvitessenttofemaleandmalereviewers

How likely is it that a male/female contact will agree to review?Thepercentageofinvitesthatresultinanagreementtoreviewanarticle

16

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Toinvestigatefurther,welookedatwhetherfemalereviewersweremorelikelytodeclineaninvitationtoreview,whichpreviousstudieshavedisproved(Fox,BurnsandMeyer,2016;Helmeret al.,2017;LerbackandHanson,2017).Wealsofoundnosignificantdifferenceinthepropensityformenorwomentoacceptreviewinvitations,supportingtheHelmeret al.(2017)suggestionthat“simplyincreasingthenumberofinvitationstofemalereviewerswouldhaveadirectandproportionaleffect”.

Despitethepercentageoffemalereviewersincreasingby3%inthelastfiveyears,itisincreasingataslowerratethaninfemalesubmissions(7%).Thissuggeststhatthereisworkforustodowhenconsideringwhotoinvitetoreviewsubmissions,andthatweshouldbemakingaconsciousefforttoincreasethenumberofinvitationstofemalereviewers.

Thehigherrateofmalereviewerscomparedtofemalecouldalsoexplainthehigheracceptrateformalecorrespondingauthors,as(Murrayet al.,2018)discovered,all-malereviewerpanelsaresignificantlymorelikelytoacceptpapersbymaleauthors.

Geographical diversity of reviewersWhilethegeographicalchangeinauthorshipiswelldocumentedacrossthescholarlypublishingliterature,wewantedtoinvestigatewhetherthechangeswerealsoreflectedinthereviewersthatweinvite(figure16,p17).Hereiswhereweseethebiggestdifferenceofthiswholestudy.Despiteonly16%ofacceptedpapersbeingfromUSauthors,weareinvitingreviewersfromtheUS30%ofthetime.ComparethistoChina,fromwhereweonlyinvite7%ofreviewersdespite17%ofacceptedpaperscomingfromcorrespondingauthorsinChina.Similar(thoughnotasextreme)differenceswerealsofoundfortheUKandIndia.

Wethenwentontolookatthegeographicalrepresentationofreviewersthatacceptaninvitationandcompleteareport(figure17,p17),incasethatwasinfluencingourchoiceofinvitation.Thisnotonlyshowsanygeographicallyproportionaldisparitiesbetweenauthorsandreviewers,butalsowhichreviewercountriesarelikelytoacceptaninvitationtoreview.ReviewersfromChinafaredverywell,despitebeingonly7%ofallreviewersinvited,theymakeup9%ofallcompletedreviews.ComparethistotheUS,where30%ofallreviewerinvitationsaresent,yettheyonlymakeup26%ofcompletedreviews.ThissuggestsareviewerinChinaismorelikelytoacceptandcompleteareportthanareviewerintheUS.ThiswouldreflectthefactthatweareinvitingreviewersfromtheUSmorefrequentlythanChinaandsuggestthatUSreviewersmustbemoreselectiveintheinvitationsthattheyaccept,astheyaremoreindemand.Perhapsifweinvitedabroadergeographicalspreadofreviewers,reviewersfromsomecountrieswouldn’tfeelasburdenedandotherswouldhavemoreofanopportunitytobuildtheirreviewingprofiles.

ResearchhasalsosuggestedthatUSreviewersaremorelikelytoprovidefavourablereportsonarticleswrittenbyauthorsfromtheUS(Link,1998),ormorelikelytorecommendapaperforacceptanceiftheysharedemographiccharacteristicswiththeauthors(Murrayet al.,2018).ThismaygosomewaytoexplainthecontinuallyhighacceptancerateforUSandEuropeancorrespondingauthors,asmanyofthereviewersthatweinvitearefromthesamecountriesandhaveabiastowardsdemographicsthatmirrortheirown.

17

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Aseditorsandpublishers,wehaveaquestiontoaskourselveswhensomanyofoursubmissionsarecomingfromcountriessuchasChina,IndiaandIran–whyarewenotaskingthesesamepeopletoreview?Isitbias?WhentalkingtoeditorstheyoftenarguethatpotentialreviewersfromAsiaandAsia-Pacificdon’thaveenoughofareviewinghistorycomparedtothosefromtheUSorEurope.Butthiscreatesacatch-22situation,howwilltheirreviewingcredentialseverbuildupifwedon’tinvitethemtoreview?ItisrecommendedpracticeonIOPPublishingjournalstoonlyinvitereviewersthathaveattainedtheirPhD.Whilewehaveaccesstothereviewinghistoryofourcontactsonanyofourjournals,wedon’thavetheiracademicqualifications,otherthanwhattheuserselectsasatitle(e.g.Professor,Dr),andhowuptodatetheyhavekepttheiraccount.We’rethereforeunabletomakeanyjudgementonwhethertherearemore“qualified”reviewersinsomecountriesthanothers,althoughatlastcount,OECDhasmorethantwo-millionactiveresearchersinChinain2012,thehighestofallcountriesrecorded(OECD,2018).CoulditalsobethatresearcherswithChinesenamesarehardertodisambiguate,thereforewecanbelessconfidentintheirpublicationhistory?Thisissomethingthatisoftencheckedwhenselectingreviewers,soitwouldbeneficialforuserstoassociatetheiraccountswithauniqueidentifier(ORCID,forexample),soweareabletodistinguishbetterbetweenindividuals.

Figure 17. Completedreviewerreportsbycountry,2014–2018Figure 16. Reviewerinvitationsbycountry,2014–2018

Reviews completedReviewers invited

USA 30% UK 8%

Germany 8%

Japan 4%

Spain 2%

Sweden 1%

Brazil 1%

Poland 1%

India 2%

Australia 2%

Italy 4% Canada 3%

China 7%

France 5%

Taiwan 1%

Russian Fed...1%

Iran0%

theNetherlands2%

Switzerland2%

Korea (Republic of)

USA 26% China 9%

Germany 7%

Japan 4%

Canada 3%

Australia 2%

Brazil 2%

Sweden 1%

Taiwan1%

Poland 1%

Spain 3%

India 2%France 4%

UK 7% Italy 5%

theNetherlands2%

Russian Federation1%

Switzerland1%

Iran1%

Korea (Republic of)2%

18

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Editorial Board membershipTheroleoftheEditorialBoardMembercanvarygreatlybetweenjournals,butatIOPPublishingtheBoardMemberstypicallyfulfilfivemainfunctions:•Representativesofthesubjectcommunitythatthejournalserves•Keyinfluencersofstrategyforajournal,makingdecisionsaboutscopeandcoverage

thatrepresentthecommunity•Seniorreviewersindifficultpeer-reviewcases,takinganadjudicatorroleininstancesof

reviewerdisagreement•Sourcesofconsultationforpublicationmisconductorethicalissues•Networkersforthejournal,gettingoutintothecommunityandsolicitinghigh-quality

submissionsonexcitingtopics

BoardMembersonsomeofourjournalsalsoplayaveryactiveroleinpeerreview,oftendoingtheinitialdeskcheck,selectingreviewersandmakingdecisionsonthesuitabilityofarticles.

Asanimportantpartofanyjournal’sidentityandstructure,weworkwithresearchcommunitiestobestrepresentthefieldsspecifictoeachjournal,believingthatourEditorialBoardsshouldreflectthediversityofthecommunitiesthattheyserve.

Gender diversity of Board membershipIn2018,acrossallIOPPublishingjournals,womenaccountfor22.5%ofBoardMembers,whichincomparisontothemakeupofourdatabase(figure2,p8)seemsbroadlyinline.Itisalsosimilartofiguresgivenbyotherpublishersinrelatedfields,forexample,arecentRoyalSocietyofChemistryreportrevealedthattheirPublishingEditorialBoardsare24%femaleandtheirPublishingAdvisoryBoardMembersare18%female(RoyalSocietyofChemistry,2018).A2011studyrevealed17.5%ofEditorialBoardsonmedicaljournalswerewomen(Amrein et al.,2011).

Figure 18. ProportionoffemaleBoardMembersbysubdiscipline

50%

40%

44%

22%23%

30%27%

29%

19%

14%

30%

20%

10%

0%

astr

ophy

sics

biop

hysi

cs

educ

atio

n

envi

ronm

ent

gene

ral p

hysi

cs

mat

eria

ls

mat

hem

atic

s

mea

sure

men

t

plas

ma

18%

12%

atom

ic, m

olec

ular

and

optic

al p

hysi

cs

Percentage of female Board Members per subcategory

19

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

WhenwebreaktheIOPPublishingresultdownbysubdisciplinehowever(figure18,p18),weseewidevariationbetweensubjects,withlowrepresentationinplasmaandmathematics,andhighrepresentationinenvironmentandastrophysics.

Figure19alsocomparestheproportionoffemaleBoardMemberswiththeproportionofsubmissionsandacceptsfromfemalecorrespondingauthors.Astrophysics,education,environmentandgeneralphysicsallhaveagreaterpercentageoffemaleBoardMembersthansubmissionsoraccepts,whereasfieldssuchasbiophysics,materials,mathematics,measurementandplasmahaveBoardsthatareconsiderablyunder-representedwhencomparedtotheirrespectiveauthorshipbases.Couldthisbecontributingtothehigheracceptanceratesforfemalecorrespondingauthorsinenvironmentalsciencesandastrophysics,seeninfigure9(p12)?

Oneinterestingpieceofanalysisshowsthattheolderajournalis,i.e.theearlieritwasfounded,thesmallerthefemaleBoardcomponentis.ThissuggeststhatwhentheBoardswereoriginallycreated,theymayhavebeenmorerepresentative,butasfemaleauthorshiphasincreased,thediversityofourBoardshavenotcontinuedtoreflectthemakeupofthecommunitiesthattheyserve.

Geographical diversity of Board membershipLookingatthemake-upofourEditorialBoardsincludingeditorsandassociateeditors(figure20,p20),justlikeourreviewerselection,theUSandUKaresignificantlyover-representedincomparisontotheproportionofsubmissionsthatwereceivefromtheseregions.GermanyandFrancealsohavehigherproportionsofBoardMemberscomparedtosubmissions.Perhapsunsurprisingly,Chinaissignificantlyunder-represented,asare

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

astr

ophy

sics

biop

hysi

cs

educ

atio

n

envi

ronm

ent

gene

ral p

hysi

cs

mat

eria

ls

mat

hem

atic

s

mea

sure

men

t

plas

ma

% female board members

% female submissions

% female accepts

atom

ic, m

olec

ular

and

optic

al p

hysi

cs

Figure 19. ThepercentageoffemaleBoardMembers,submissionsandaccepts,bysubdiscipline

Is female Board Member proportionate to authorship?

20

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

IndiaandIran.Isthisjustathrowbacktothefactthatsubmissionscomingfromthesecountrieshaveonlyincreasedinrecentyears?WepositedtheideathattheresearchcommunitiesinChinaandIndiaarestillyoungincomparisontotheUSandEurope,andwhenlookingfornewBoardMemberswewouldtypicallylookforsomeonewellestablishedintheircareerwithanexcellentpublicationhistoryandgoodnetworkswithinthecommunity.WiththesurgeinChineseandIndianauthorshiponlyhappeninginthelastfewyears,isthereanargumenttosuggestthattherearen’tasmanyresearchersatthat“topflight”levelfromAsiaandAsia-Pacificyet?ThecontrarypointtothisisthatthesheersizeandpopulationofresearchersinChinaandIndiashouldmeananumericadvantage.Orperhapsthisisdowntoperceivedqualityofscholarshipfromthesecountries,provenorotherwise.The2018WorldUniversityrankingsforphysicsandastronomyarestillheavilydominatedbyUSandEuropeaninstitutions(Times Higher Education,2017).AnotherreasoncouldbethatweaskexistingBoardMemberstosuggestnewpotentialBoardMembers,whomaywellberecruitingintheirownimage,orarenotaswellnetworkedoutsidetheirowncountry,creatingaMatthewEffect(Merton,1968).

Figure 20. GeographicalrepresentationofBoardMembersatAugust2018

Board Members by country

USA 28% UK 13%

Germany 7%

Japan 4% Canada 3%

India 2%Sweden 2%

Poland 1% Israel 1%Brazil 1%

Swit...2%

Austria1%

Singapore1%

theNetherlands 2%

Spain 2%Australia 3%

Italy 4%

China 8% France 5%

Korea (Republic of)3%

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

21

IOP Publishing

Thefindingsofthisreporthighlightseveralquestionsandproblems.Forexample,whyareweinvitingfewerfemalereviewersthanisproportionaltothedatabase?WhydoweseemtofavourreviewersfromtheUSoverChina?WhyhaveourjournalEditorialBoardsnotbeenmodifiedtoreflectthechangingdemographicsofthesubjectcommunitiesthattheyserve?Whilewecanmakesomesuggestions,noneofthisanalysisprovesanycausalrelationship,soconclusionsmustbedrawntentatively.Thatsaid,wearecommittedtodoingwhateverwecantoreducebiasinpeerreviewandthereforehavealreadytaken,orplantotake,thefollowingactionstoimproveourrepresentationbothintermsofgenderandgeography.Thesearelistedinnoparticularorder:

Providing guidance for reviewersWhilewehavelongaskedreviewerstodeclareanyconflictofinterestbeforeacceptinganinvitationtoreview,wehavenotbeenofferinganyadvicetoreviewersonhowtoavoidanyoftheirownimplicitbiaseswhenassessingpapers.Wehaverecentlyintroducedsomenewguidanceonourwebsiteandinourreviewerguides(seehttps://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/implicit-bias/)whichisafirststeptohelpreviewerseliminatetheirownbiaseswhenassessingpapers.WearealsodirectingreviewerstothePublonsAcademy(https://publons.com/academy),afreeandpracticalpeer-reviewtrainingcourseforearlycareerresearcherswithamodulethatcoversauthorandreviewerbiases,conflictsofinterest,andmisconduct.Wehavealsoincorporatedinformationonimplicitbiasinthereviewertrainingthatwerunatconferencesandinstitutions.

Training for peer-review staff on addressing bias in peer reviewRecognisingthateveryonehasbias,whetherconsciousorunconscious,werecentlyinvitedaconsultanttorunseveralworkshopsonbiasforourpublishingstaff.Theseworkshopsweremandatoryforanystaffdirectlyinvolvedinpeerreview,andoptionalforothersworkinginrelateddepartments.Thesesessionswerewellreceivedandprovidedausefulforumforstafftolearnabout,anddiscuss,thevariousaspectsofbiasinpeerreview,includingpreventionmethods.

Training Board Members on implicit bias and reviewer selectionAsnotedearlier,ourEditorialBoardMemberscanoftenbeinvolvedinthepeer-reviewprocessandwillbeinvolvedwithsuggestingandinvitingreviewers.Justaswithourownstaff,weintendtoencourageourBoardMemberstorecognisewheretheremaybeimplicitbiasatplayandtrytoselectmorediverseandrepresentativereviewers.

Building more diverse and inclusive Editorial BoardsThisreporthasshownthatourEditorialBoardsarenotreflectiveenoughofthecommunitiesthatthejournalsrepresent.WewillworkhardtomakesurethattherearemorewomenonourEditorialBoardsandthatthegeographicregionswereceivesubmissionsfromarealsomoreproportionallyrepresented.

4. Recommendations

22

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Advising authors to consider diversity and inclusion with their reviewer suggestionsIOPPublishinghavealwaysgivenauthorstheopportunitytolistsuggestedoropposedreviewerswhensubmittingtheirpaper.Wewillsoonbeaskingauthorstoconsiderdiversitywhenmakingsuggestions,andhopethatthiswillhelpusbroadenourowndatabase,andthereforethereviewersweinvitetoreport.

Invite more women to reviewWomenarejustaslikelytoacceptaninvitationasmen,andyetwearenotinvitingtheminproportiontotheirrepresentationonourdatabase.AclearactionforusistoinvitemorewomentoreviewpapersforIOPPublishing,whichshouldimprovethenumberofwomenreviewersandpotentiallytheacceptratesforpapersfromfemalecorrespondingauthors.

Rely less on reviewers from the US and EuropeItisclearfromthisreportthatweareover-relyingonreviewersfromtheUSandEurope,whenweshouldbeusingmorereviewersfromAsiaandAsia-Pacificregions.Notonlyareresearchersfromtheseregionsmorelikelytoacceptaninvitationtoreview,thereisalsoevidencetosuggestthatthiswillhelpimproveacceptratesforcorrespondingauthorsfromtheseregions.

Early Career Researcher Reviewer Recruitment programmeDuetothesizeofourowndatabaseandtoolssuchasReviewerLocator,wehaverarelymademarketingattemptstorecruitmorereviewers.Recognisingthateveryoneneedstostartsomewhere,wearenowofferingtheopportunityforearlycareerresearcherstobuildtheirreviewingexperiencewithIOPPublishing.Assomewhatofanexperiment,weareencouragingthoseintheearlystagesoftheirresearchcareer(postdocsorthoseworkinginanindependentresearchpositionwithlessthanfiveyears’experience)toregisterwithus,andwewillhavethemreviewappropriatemanuscriptsalongsideamoreexperiencedreviewer.Wehopethatthiswillleadtoanincreaseindiversityamongstourdatabaseofcontactsandhelptobuildreviewingexpertisewithintwoofournewersubjectcommunities.Seehttp://iopscience.iop.org/page/early-career-reviewersformoreinformationonthisprogramme.

Addition of Mx title on manuscript submission systemOurmanuscriptsubmissionsystemhas“title”asarequiredfieldforuseraccounts(forexample,Dr,Professor,Mr,Mrs),sothatwecanbesureweareaddressingourusersappropriately.ArecentsuggestionfromananonymousauthorwasthatweincludeanoptionforuserstoidentifyasMx,agender-neutraltermthatmaybeusefulforthosewhohavenotyetattaineddoctororprofessorstatus.Thishasnowbeenimplementedonoursubmissionsystemandwehopethatthisoffersusersameansoffeelingmoreincludedandrepresented.Itshouldbenotedthatwedonotincludeauthortitlesinanypublishedmanuscripts.

Reminder to reviewers to update their user account WenotedearlierinthisreportthatitisrecommendedpracticeatIOPPublishingtoonlyinvitereviewersthathaveobtainedtheirPhD.Assuch,wearereliantonuserstokeeptheiraccountuptodate,sothatweareabletoinvitethemtoreviewifappropriate,aswellascorrectlyreportingontheirinstitutionandcountry.Wearenowplanningtodoacampaigntousersonceayearencouragingthemtoupdatetheiraccountdetailstosupportourstrategytobemoreinclusive.

23

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

Encourage authors and reviewers to sign up for ORCIDBeforeinvitingsomeonetoreviewforuswewillofteninvestigatetheirpublicationhistoryandbackground,tocheckthattheyhavetherightareasofinterestandexpertise.Thiscanproveverydifficultforuserswithincompletenamerecordsorcommonnames(Bohannon,2016).In2017,wesignedtheORCIDOpenLetterandnowrequireORCIDidentifiersforallcorrespondingauthorssubmittingtheirworktoIOPPublishing-ownedjournals(IOPPublishing,2017).

Consider double-blind review on more of our journalsOurexperimentwithdouble-blindpeerreviewin2017provedsuccessful,andthosewhoselectedthismodeldidsobelievingthatitwaslesspronetodiscriminationorbiases.Wehavethereforedecidedtoofferadouble-blindoptionontwomoreofourjournalsin2019:New Journal of PhysicsandPhysica Scripta.

Creation of an internal diversity and inclusion statement on peer reviewWehavecreatedaninternaldocument(seeAppendixB,p30)forstafftoconsultshouldtheybeunsureofourcompanyapproachtodiversityandinclusioninpeerreview.Wehopethiswillkeepusontrackinourmissiontoimprove.

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

24

IOP Publishing

Wefullyacknowledgethatthereareseverallimitationsinthedatapresentedinthisreport.Theanalysisisundertakenassumingthatthesampleisrepresentativeofthewholedataset,andasouruserdataisoftenself-reported,thereisahighriskofduplicatesandout-of-dateinformationbeingheld.Only40%ofourcontactswereabletobegenderedaswedon’tcollectdemographicinformationonourusers,andweareawarethatsomeofouruserswillnotidentifywitheithermainstreamgender.Geographicalinformationisbasedontheself-reportedaffiliationofusersandmaynotreflecttheircountryofbirthorthenationalitythattheyidentifywith.

5. Limitations

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

25

IOP Publishing

Reviewingthegenderandgeographicaldataofourauthors,reviewersandEditorialBoardMembershasshownthatthereisprogressbeingmade,withsubmissionsfromfemalecorrespondingauthorsontheincreaseandgenerallygoodgenderrepresentationonourEditorialBoards.Thereishowever,stillconsiderableroomforimprovementinalmosteveryotherrespect.Womenhavelesschanceofhavingtheirpapersacceptedinhalfoursubdisciplinesandarenotinvitedoftenenoughtoreviewpapers.Thereissignificantover-representationfromtheUSandEurope,bothinEditorialBoardsandreviewerinvitations.Countriesthataregrowingrapidlyinresearchoutput,suchasChinaandIndia,areunder-representedonourBoards,andresearchersfromthesecountriesarenotproportionallyinvitedtoreviewasoftenasresearchersfrommoreestablishedWesterncountries,despitethembeingmorelikelytoagreetoreport.

Whilewecanattempttocomeupwithreasonsforthedisparitiesabove,noneofthisanalysisprovesanycausalrelationship.Thismeansthattherecommendationswemakeinthisreportarealsonotaguaranteeofanyimprovement,howeverwearekeentodoeverythingwecantomakeIOPPublishing’speerreviewasrepresentativeaspossible.

Therecommendationsthatweputforwardareinthemaineasytoimplementandmanyarealreadyinplace.Aspublishers,wehavearesponsibilitytoensurethatourauthorship,peerreviewersandEditorialBoardMembersarereflectiveofthecommunitiesthatweserve,andwewelcomesuggestionsandquestionsfromanyoneinterestedinhelpingusachievethesegoals.Wehopethatthechangeswearemakingwillcontributetoaricher,morediversepeer-reviewexperienceforall.

6. Conclusions

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

26

IOP Publishing

HAllen,EBoxer,ACury,TGaston,CGraf,BHogan,SLoh,HWakleyandMWillis,What does better peer review look like? Definitions, essential areas, and recommendations for better practice,2018.Retrievedfromosf.io/4mfk2.

KAmrein,ALangmann,AFahrleitner-Pammer,TRPieberandIZollner-Schwetz,Women Underrepresented on Editorial Boards of 60 Major Medical Journals,2011,Gender Medicine.

JBBearandAWilliamsWoolley, The Role of Gender in Team Collaboration and Performance,2011,Interdisciplinary Science Reviews.

JBohannon,Journals to solve ‘John Smith’ common name problem by requiring author IDs,2016,Science.Retrievedfromwww.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/journals-solve-john-smith-common-name-problem-requiring-author-ids.

AEbadandASchiffauerova,How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors,2016,Scientometrics.

Elsevier,Gender in the Global Research Landscape,2017,Amsterdam:Elsevier.Retrievedfromwww.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/265661/ElsevierGenderReport_final_for-web.pdf.

JEspin,SPalmas,FCarrasco-Rueda,KRiemer,PEAllen,NBerkebileet al.,A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology,2017,PLOS Biology.

CWFox,CSBurnsandJAMeyer,Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review,2016,Functional Ecology.

RBFreemanandWHuang,Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Co-Authorship within the US,2015,Journal of Labor Economics.

MHelmer,MSchottdorf,ANeefandDBattaglia,Research: Gender bias in scholarly peer review,2017, eLife.

LHolman,DStuart-FoxandCEHauser,The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?,2018,PLOS Biology.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956.

SHuggettandLGoodchildvanHilten,Uncovering India’s scientific strengths,2016,Amsterdam:Elsevier.Retrievedfromwww.elsevier.com/connect/uncovering-indias-scientific-strengths.

InPublishing,IOP to expand double-blind peer review,2018,InPublishing.Retrievedfromwww.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/iop_to_expand_doubleblind_peer_review_11692.aspx.

7. References

27

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

IOPPublishing,Reviewer survey,2016.Unpublishedinternalreport.

IOPPublishing,ORCID scheme introduced across all IOP Publishing journals,2017.Retrievedfromhttp://ioppublishing.org/orcid-scheme-introduced-across-all-iop-publishing-journals/.

IOPPublishing,Reviewer invitations,2018a.Unpublishedinternalreport.

IOPPublishing,Peer Review KPI report,2018b.Unpublishedinternalreport.

HJia,China’s citations catching up,30November2017,Nature Index.Retrievedfromwww.natureindex.com/news-blog/chinas-citations-catching-up.

DAKing,The scientific impact of nations,2004,Nature.

ZKmietowicz,Double blind peer reviews are fairer and more objective, say academics,2008,British Medical Journal.

JLerbackandBHanson,Journals invite too few women to referee,2017,Nature.

AMLink,US and Non-US Submissions: An Analysis of Reviewer Bias,1998,Journal of the American Medical Association,246-247.

DLMedinandCDLee,Diversity Makes Better Science,2012,Association for Psychological Science Observe.Retrievedfromwww.psychologicalscience.org/observer/diversity-makes-better-science.

RKMerton,The Matthew Effect in Science,1968,Science.

DMurray,KSiler,VLariviere,WMChan,AMCollings,JRaymondandCRSugimoto,Gender and international diversity improves equity in peer review,2018,BioRxiv.Retrievedfromwww.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/08/29/400515.

NationalScienceBoard,Science and Engineering Indicators 2018,2018,Alexandria,VA:NationalScienceBoard.Retrievedfromwww.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators.

Nature,Nature’s under-representation of women,2018,Nature.

OECD,Researchers (indicator),2018,doi:10.1787/20ddfb0f-en.

GPinholste,Journals and funders confront implicit bias in peer review,2016,Science.

RoyalSocietyofChemistry, Diversity landscape of the chemical sciences,2018.Retrievedfromwww.rsc.org/globalassets/02-about-us/our-strategy/inclusion-diversity/cm-044-17_a4-diversity-landscape-of-the-chemical-sciences-report_web-2.pdf.

TimesHigherEducation,World University Rankings 2018,2017,Times Higher Education.Retrievedfromwww.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/subjects/3060/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.

28

IOP PublishingDiversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

UNESCO,Women in Science,2018.Retrievedfromhttp://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs51-women-in-science-2018-en.pdf.

CWennerasandAWold,Nepotism and sexism in peer-review,1997,Nature.

YXie,CZhangandQLaia,China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology,2014,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.Retrievedfromhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1407709111.

Diversity and Inclusion in Peer Review at IOP Publishing

29

IOP Publishing

A: Which journals are included in the dataset?

8. Appendix

•2DMaterials

•Biofabrication

•Bioinspiration&Biomimetics

•BiomedicalMaterials

•BiomedicalPhysics&EngineeringExpress

•ClassicalandQuantumGravity

•ConvergentSciencePhysicalOncology

•ElectronicStructure

•EnvironmentalResearchLetters

•EuropeanJournalofPhysics

•FlexibleandPrintedElectronics

•InverseProblems

•JournalofBreathResearch

•JournalofGeophysicsandEngineering

•JournalofMicromechanicsandMicroengineering

•JournalofNeuralEngineering

•JournalofOptics

•JournalofPhysicsA:MathematicalandTheoretical

•JournalofPhysicsB:Atomic,MolecularandOpticalPhysics

•JournalofPhysics:Communications

•JournalofPhysics:CondensedMatter

•JournalofPhysicsD:AppliedPhysics

•JournalofPhysicsG:NuclearandParticlePhysics

•JournalofRadiologicalProtection

•JPhysEnergy

•JPhysMaterials

•JPhysPhotonics

•MaterialsResearchExpress

•MeasurementScienceandTechnology

•MethodsandApplicationsinFluorescence

•ModellingandSimulationinMaterialsScienceandEngineering

•MultifunctionalMaterials

•NanoFutures

•Nanotechnology

•NewJournalofPhysics

•Nonlinearity

•PhysicalBiology

•PhysicalEducation

•PhysicaScripta

•PhysicsinMedicine&Biology

•PhysiologicalMeasurement

•PlasmaPhysicsandControlledFusion

•PlasmaResearchExpress

•PlasmaSourcesScienceandTechnology

•QuantumScience&Technology

•ReportsonProgressinPhysics

•SemiconductorScienceandTechnology

•SmartMaterialsandStructures

•SurfaceTopography:MetrologyandProperties

•SuperconductorScienceandTechnology

•TranslationalMaterialsResearch

DiversityandInclusioninPeerReviewatIOPPublishing

30

IOP Publishing

Guiding principles: publishing and production services

•Asaleadinginternationalsciencepublisher,wearecommittedtomakingprogressondiversityandinclusionacrossallofourprogrammes.

•Wewillanalyse,challengeandcontinuouslyimproveourworkingpracticestoprovideafairandaccessibleservicetoallconstituentsofourdiversecustomerbase.

Our goals

•Recognisetheimportanceofdiversityandinclusionatthehighestlevel,evidencedbysenior-managementownershipandcommitment.

•Promoteacollectiveapproachtodiversityandinclusioninourpublishingteams,withworkingpracticesandindividualobjectivestosupportthis.

•Usemeaningfuldataandconsultationtounderstandourcustomers’needsandtoinformevidence-baseddecision-makingondiversityandinclusionissues.

•Monitorandmeasuretheimpactofourdiversityandinclusioninitiatives.

Continuous improvement: a proactive approach to diversity and inclusionWehaveaproject-ledapproachtoachieveourdiversityandinclusiongoals.Activitiesinclude:

•RegularreviewofdiversityacrossourjournalEditorialBoardsandadvisorypanels.

•Ongoingevaluationofdiversityacrossourcontentcommissioningprogrammes(journals,ebooks,journalismandconferencepublishing).

•Aproactive,training-ledapproachtoaddressthechallengesofimplicitbiasinpeerreview.

•Quantitativeanalysisofourauthorandreviewernetworksonanumberofdiversitymeasures.

GovernanceIOPPublishing’sDiversityandInclusionProgrammeisoverseenbytheSeniorPublishingManagementTeamwithguidanceandsupportfromtheInstituteofPhysics’DiversityandInclusionCommittee.

B: IOP Publishing Diversity and Inclusion statement for publishing and production