Dataset Information

Racial, gender, sexual, and disability identities of the Journal of the Medical Library Association's editorial board, reviewers, and authors.

ABSTRACT: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) recently issued a call for submissions that recognize and address social injustices; speak to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our workforce and among our user populations; and share critical perspectives on health sciences librarianship as well as those on any topic within JMLA's scope written by authors who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color. We also committed to creating more equitable opportunities for authors, reviewers, and editorial board members from marginalized groups. As part of this effort, we conducted a demographic survey of all individuals who served as a member of the JMLA editorial board or reviewer or had submitted a manuscript to JMLA between 2018 and 2020. We found that most survey respondents are white, heterosexual, women and do not identify with a disability, meaning that JMLA is missing out on a diversity of perspectives and life experiences that could improve the journal's processes and policies, enrich its content, and accelerate the research and practice of health sciences librarianship. Therefore, to avoid perpetuating or aggravating systemic biases and power structures in scholarly publishing or health sciences librarianship, we pledge to take concrete steps toward making JMLA a more diverse and inclusive journal.

SUBMITTER: Akers KG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270382 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Racial, gender, sexual, and disability identities of the Journal of the Medical Library Association's editorial board, reviewers, and authors.

Akers Katherine G KG Pionke J J JJ Aaronson Ellen M EM Chambers Thane T Cyrus John W JW Eldermire Erin R B ERB Norton Melanie J MJ

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20210401 2

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) recently issued a call for submissions that recognize and address social injustices; speak to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our workforce and among our user populations; and share critical perspectives on health sciences librarianship as well as those on any topic within JMLA's scope written by authors who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color. We also committed to creating more equitable opportunities for authors, rev ...[more]

PMID: 34285661

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveMany journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.Design and settingWe conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.ParticipantsParticipants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.ResultsWe received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36% and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.ConclusionsAuthors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.Trial registration numberNCT02961036.

Project description:ImportanceBecause women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine, including ophthalmology, knowledge of sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards seems warranted.ObjectivesTo investigate the sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards and compare the publication productivity and number of citations of male vs female board members.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was used to identify the 20 highest-ranked ophthalmology journals. Faculty members from each ophthalmic subspecialty were surveyed within a US academic ophthalmology department to identify 15 influential ophthalmology societies. The 2018 board members of each journal and society were identified from the journals' and societies' official websites, and the sex of each individual was recorded. Information regarding journals and societies was collected from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Scopus database was accessed in January 2019 and then used to find each member's h-index and m-quotient.Main outcomes and measuresThe h-index, defined as the highest number of an author's publications that received at least h number of citations, was calculated for each board member. The m-quotient, which accounts for varying lengths of academic careers, was calculated by dividing the h-index by the number of years since first publication.ResultsOf the 1077 members of ophthalmic journal editorial and society leadership boards, 797 (74.0%) were men and 280 (26.0%) were women. Among the 24 editors in chief of the 20 journals investigated, 23 (95.8%) were male. Thirteen of the 15 professional society presidents (86.7%) were men. Male board members had significantly higher median h-indexes (male vs female journals: 34 [interquartile range {IQR}, 23-47] vs 28 [IQR, 19-40], P < .001; male vs female societies: 27 [IQR, 15-41] vs 17 [IQR, 8-32], P = .006), median publication numbers (male vs female journal board members: 157 [IQR, 88-254] vs 109 [IQR, 66-188], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 109 [IQR, 57-190] vs 58 [IQR, 28-139, P = .001), and median citations (male vs female journal board members: 4027 [IQR, 1897-8005] vs 2871 [IQR, 1344-5852], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 2228 [IQR, 1005-5069] vs 1090 [IQR, 410-2527], P = .003). However, the median m-quotients for male and female board members were comparable (male vs female journal board members: 1.2 [IQR, 0.8-1.6] vs 1.1 [IQR, 0.8-1.5], P = .54; male vs female society board members: 1.0 [IQR, 0.7-1.4] vs 0.9 [IQR, 0.6-1.3], P = .32).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that the sex composition on journal editorial and professional society boards in ophthalmology is consistent with the sex composition of ophthalmologists in the US, as reported by the Association of American Colleges, but that editor in chief and society president positions are male dominated despite the apparent equality in academic productivity.

Dataset Information

Racial, gender, sexual, and disability identities of the Journal of the Medical Library Association's editorial board, reviewers, and authors.

Publications

Racial, gender, sexual, and disability identities of the <i>Journal of the Medical Library Association</i>'s editorial board, reviewers, and authors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets