Women in science & your journal
Many people suggest that gender discrimination and ‘glass ceilings’ still exist for women in the scientific community. Others say that choice and circumstances create these gaps. Whatever the cause, the number of women in high-level scientific positions is significantly lower than that for men, especially as the positions get higher.
Does your journal have a role to play in supporting the careers of women in science and academia?
Please choose A, B or C, and explain your rationale.
A. Yes, with small steps I can make a difference. By asking women to submit to, review for, or be on the editorial board for my journal.
B. Yes, but that role is minor and ultimately science itself will take its course and merit will determine the careers of scientists of both genders.
C. No, this shouldn’t be the role of the journal.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
A. Small steps indeed are needed and the scientific journals can support a little progress. For reviewers and submitters I do not make a difference between male and female as here the request is on the professional expertise/competence only which is gender neutral. However, I try to help specifically junior and female scientists from developing countries to publish their data/results in providing some editorial and scientific assistance to polish their submissions and bring it to international standards. But I wished we would have more female scientists on the editorial board of our journal (Environmental Radioactivity).
Difficult is to obtain statistics on a potential glass ceiling for female submittors/reviewers: Could a gender index be introduced similar to the citation index for the different journals? I assume this would reveal that there are strong differences in the different scientific fields.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:11 am
A. Yes, with small steps I can make a difference. By asking women to submit to, review for, or be on the editorial board for my journal.
Women discrimination in science is a fact, and it is necessary to fight against it using all possible media. The journal politics can be one important factor in this fighting.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:36 am
B. Yes, but I believe the role of scientific journal in the gender problem is minor.
Undoubtedly the primarly role of the scientific journals should be the publication of the most recent scientific progresses to the society to contribute the advance the science and technology. During this processes, the significant endeavour of editorial members will be required. Those contributions will be acknowledged and appreciated by the society which might be in the future benefitial for searching career opportunities. Therefore, it would be our mission that the consideration of gender when we organize the editorial members. Our jounal, Biotechnology Letters, should have been kept its acitivity by supporting female scientists, therefore, it may logical if we may concider the propotion of the gender of the journal contribution to the propotion of the gender in the editorial member.
By the way, it should be so difficult for American/European people to tell the gender of Asian people, and is vise versa. Actually, during the reviewing processes I have never concerned the gender of authors. I believe that the rate of acception obviously should not be affected by the gender problem.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:17 am
A. Yes, with small steps I can make a difference. By asking women to submit to, review for, or be on the editorial board for my journal.
Our journal, ‘Forest Ecology and Management’, is currently searching for more women for our Editorial Advisory Board. We receive many papers from women, and many of our best reviewers are women. We are determined to achieve a balance in the EAB, but we are aware that we have a long way still to go.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
A.
Yes, with small steps we can all make a difference without compromising the quality of our science or the integrity of our publication. For example, in identifying new editorial board members when a position becomes vacant it takes little effort to ask colleagues to suggest the highest quality potential members of both genders. Asking this explicitly may generate names not considered beyond the usual close network.
Having started in the sciences in the 1960s, as a woman, and as a Fellow of AAAS since 1981, I have seen many changes in broadening opportunities in science for women; however, we still have a ways to go.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
As an editor I would be interested to know if there is any indication of a glass ceiling for our female authors. But do we have the required information?
Is there a way to look at acceptance rates per gender for example? I personally do not make an effort to know the gender of my authors or referees, as it is obviously not relevant to the science content, so I often don’t know. Is this kept track of anywhere in the system?
August 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
A-Each of us can make a difference without sacrificing the ultimate our respective journals which is our stewardship obligation.
We certainly owe our authors gender-blind treatment with regard to the treatment and fate of their submissions. Yet we can encourage colleagues to write up and submit their work (this is especially te case for those in non-academic institutions). We also must seek referees with a sound knowledge of the science and technology of a submission. Yet that does not mean seeking the most senior in a field, but rather a person who will reviewer a paper carefully and well. Just as we should give reviewing opportunities to early career professionals, we can make an effort to choose more women as referees rather than relying on a seasoned (or over-seasoned) few.
The paucity of women among the editorships of our journals is rather appalling and is the area in which we can make the greatest impact fastest. To be sure the pool of candidates is not so large, but the representation on boards of editors and advisory boards is far less that that pool would allow. The easiest target is the advisory board as opportunities to add to the editorial ranks are not so frequent. Consequently the imperative to be especially vigilant when such opportunities arise is greater. To be sure such “community service” is not dispositive when career decisions are made, but they do have a definite influence.
While I believe that merit should determine the careers of scientists of both genders, I also know that we can responsibly give that merit a chance to be more visible without sacrificing quality or fairness.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
To be perfectly honest I never notice the gender of our contributors-it plays no part in acceptance/rejection of papers. In our editorial board we have only two female and twenty-seven males. Occasionally I will be asked why we do not have more females and I usually answer that no female has been nominated. I should also point out that their is a shortage of females who fit our journal (area). The few females have all been asked and committed to other journals and (societies) and simply would be stretched to thin.
The answer ? I read once that in USA the majority (by not much) at the undergraduate chemistry is female but at the graduate level is overwhelming male. This leads to a shortage of female postdocs and subsequently female professors-a chain effect. So why do females (not all but many) choose to stop at undergraduate chemistry ? The ACS and other agencies and societies have asked that question. I would be interested to hear how we can attract more females into graduate school, then postdoc and finally professors (I also realise that many females choose industry)
August 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
We have already appointed some women on the editorial board and our Editor-in-Chief is a women. I also ask women to review articles in their area of expertise and also submit manuscripts for publication.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Whenever possible, I contact our Editor-in-Chief and recommend women scientists for editorial and editorial board membership for Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. I regularly request reviewers from the pool of women scientists at various levels of their careers.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
In our journal we have quite a lot of papers written by women, and percentage is quire real to he number of women working as scientists or reserachers in the foelds covering the scope of our journal. The number of women authors is not a problem of the policy of the journal. maybe we can just include mere women in the editoroal board. Now we have two among 30. But that is percentage pf the speakers on conferences, meeting, congresses which cover the scope of our journal.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Of course, in doing so I will not compromise the quality of science.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
A. Yes, with small steps I can make a difference. By asking women to submit to, review for, or be on the editorial board for my journal. I think there are fewer women in particular areas of science to begin with. In addition, women often do not speak up or promote their candidacy as well as men do.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Even though a high scientific quality is, of course, the most important aspect, I remind often that we (editors) should at least try to search for qualified female scientists to act e.g. as editorial board members or editors. In that sense I select A. However, I am happy to support female scientists to write high level papers, but the criteria for the publication of manuscripts should absolutely not be based on the gender of the authors.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:08 am
B is my answer, our Journal does not discriminate but is the last step in a research career, i.e. publishing scientific results so that whowever has achieved such results will have them on paper.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Scientific quality of the papers is independent of the sex. My vote is C
August 27th, 2008 at 12:52 am
My response is somewhere between B and C. Social Networks has seven Associate Editors and of these three are women. While having women well represented on the board was important, that criterion was secondary to the quality of their scholarship. In reviewing manuscripts, no attention is paid to gender. Scientific quality will dominate and the role of journals, as I see it, to process manuscripts with regard to quality and importance. If there is a problem to be solved, and the data suggest there is, albeit with great variation between fields, solutions are more likely to be found in the recruitment processes of colleges and universities.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:39 am
We have several women editors on the J.C.S/S Editorial Board. They are quite active . –E.K. Blum, Managing Editor JCSS
August 26th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
My vote is C. We edit a scientific journal. We aren’t running a service for perceived disadvantaged groups. I really don’t care whether our editorial board is 100% male, 100% female, or somewhere in between.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
My view is B. One might have chosen A and overrepresented them in invitations etc., but women - especially the good ones - are already overburdened with such gender battle invitations and obligations.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
The only thing I have done is to try to ensure adequate representation of women as Associate Editors and as members of the Editorial Board.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
A — Fortunately, there are many women in our field who are highly accomplished, who publish broadly, and are suitable as reviewers and for leadership roles on journals. We have many women on our editorial board and I think it is appropriate to seek gender balance and opporunities for women when making annual decisions about new board members and key roles such as associate editorships. Because progress on equity can be slow if left to its own devices, I think that proactive efforts are appropriate (and in no way jeopardize quality). But I certainly don’t believe that the criteria for publication of papers should in any way be adjusted based on the gender of the author(s).
August 26th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
My view is B.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
A. I have not seen any gendder gap as a professor and as editors in multiple journals. In fact, some of my woman Ph.D. students are more prolific in journal publications than my male Ph.D. students.
B. see above.
C. The objective of a journal is to publish the best scientifc work. No one should get a special treatment but the quality of submissions.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
This would be a bad point for women if they have special treatment for publication of their manuscripts. I would say that women who already raised children have time for being editors in journals and for some reason they are not enough present in the editorial boards. I think often Editors-in-Chief simply do not think about possible candidates in this group.
From the experience as an editor in several mathematical journals I know that there is no much difference between quality of reviews made by women or men, both may have delays or superficial reviewing. Both genders do have as well highly qualified reviewers.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
My response is somewhere between A and B. We have a number of women who serve on our board, who review, and who submit manuscripts.
As others have noted, I believe the true gender bias exists in academia. In the university-based research system, those who excel are often those who either do not have families or who have a wife/husband/significant other taking care of house and family obligations. This frees up the scientists to follow that lonely tenure track.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
A. Yes, with small steps I can make a difference. By asking women to submit to, review for, or be on the editorial board for my journal.
I’ve demonstrated that this process works both in my own School and in international science (committee nominations, awards etc). I have encouraged this approach in my own journals ( editors, associate editors, referees etc.). The rationale is that women are still a minority group in science and any woman that makes it to the top rank has, by definition, an exceptional proven track record. The measurement of success of the approach is, in all areas including journals, the nearness of approach to a gender balance that reflects the societal numbers. The benefits are that, with women role models, the journal accesses the majority of humankind.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
A. Yes, with small steps I can make a difference. By asking women to submit to, review for, or be on the editorial board for my journal.
i have been active in placing women on the board and seeking women reviewers
July 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
While I believe that there is definetly bias against women in academia and other places, I, at first instance, would like to honour merit for my journal, rather than gender. To look for a reviewer, I never look for a man or woman; the only criteria I keep is the credential of the person as available in published literature to assess the expertise to evaluate the manuscript. Needless to say, of often women are involved in the process.
To sum-up, let science and merit take their course.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Running CBI for a number of years (about 10), it took over from a female editor who had had the job for just two years and could not cope, but before that it was run quite successfully by another woman for over 8 years. My editorial board has a good number of women on it, but it is not yet up to parity. I will push towards this level in the next few years as some older gentlemen come off the panel.
Regarding editorial roles, I see this as a great role for women who want to be with children and can work mainly from their homes. So why do not more women come forward to take on journals? I think we have to ask women in PI positions and others who have given up trying to pursue a full time career why they do not get more involved. I don’t think it is a dearth of talent or a lack of opportunity. Maybe it just does not appeal to them, but only they can tell us why.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
A. Over the last five years I am going out of my way to find women to serve as Associate Editors. I found one but she resigned after two years. I found a second one who is serving for the last two years. The challenge is to find qualified women not just women. My guess is that 10 years from now that issue will disappear by itself.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
My actions as a woman editor fall somewhat between A and B. I like to encourage women to submit manuscripts and act as reviewers because I find women generally have a lower self-esteem and are more self critical than their male counterparts, so they do need more encouragement. Their research is as good as that of their male colleagues, but the often do not submit research because of minor abberations which male colleagues would put into a more rational perspective.
From a practical point of view, I find that they are generally more conscientious and give the manuscript review serious consideration. Not that most of my male reviewers don’t- I have the greatest respect for their reviews, but they take it more in their stride.
Personally, the conflict between family needs ( I chose to have children) and work always left me feeling guilty about both aspects and this does not enhance one’s career prospects. I often declined more responsibility where I thought it would conflict with family requirements.
In summary, lower self esteem and family conflicts are hurdles to be overcome before women even start on the career ladder. With encouragement, they can learn to manage the conflict and progress in their careers.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Yes, there is a large bias in academe in the male/female ratio, beginning with tenure rate and becoming more pronounced at the more senior faculty levels.
There is also a subtle bias that women need not be paid as much as the ‘bread winners’ and are more apt to wash their husband’s socks.
When this is added to the fact that many colleagues have seen their own mothers, sisters and wives stay-at-home mom, these biases and inequalities should not come as a surpprise.
We therefore must encourage and nurture the women and value the contributions that they bring to the table.
The journal’s should seek to have parity in the no. of editors, reviewers, and senior editorial staff.
Regards,
M. Y. Leclerc
July 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I support C. Editors should ask anyone they feel has outstanding contributions to submit to journals, regardless of sex. Any special consideration for females is essentially discrimination.
In our department (Geoscience, traditionally a male dominated field) we have an unusually high proportion of female undergrads compared to other Canadian universities (approx 40% compared to 20%). However, we have a low number of female faculty. There are approximately 38 faculty, only five of whom are female and only two with a research focus (the other three are primarily focussed on teaching). We do have a reasonable number of female graduate students (about 55 of 175 students). We have never had large numbers of female applicants for faculty positions, and far fewer who have been hired. I would not judge the female faculty (past or present) to be of any difference in terms of quality or “success” rate once they are in the door. The key seems to be to get them hired in the first place and that seems to be determined by applicants for positions (there are not enough!).
This is a vexing problem that needs to be addressed, but I’m not convinced that special efforts by journal editors to seek out female contributors is the answer. Female faculty that have done well in the Faculty of Science at our University have often had a mentor (male or female) to help them through the sometimes stressful work of academic life. Also, getting female graduate students to pursue a faculty position may be a critical factor.
In my opinion, it would be perhaps effective for existing faculty to seek out prospective female applicants for faculty positions through contact at scientific meetings and other venues. Also, departments need to be more proactive. Perhaps we need to just hire young outstanding female academics when they appear and be less concerned with filling a position in a particular discipline. In our department over the years, the best faculty (male or female) have been hired when there was more focus on the quality of the individual and less focus on the requirements of the position.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
My support is for A. The lack of women among editors is both surprising and embarassing, and editors-in-chief could be reminded that some gender balance would be a good thing for their journals.
As an editor (man) I tend to choose a women rather than a man when I have a choice between two equally qualified reviewers. The reason is mainly a practical one: in my experience women are more likely than men to deliver good reviews on time.
It would be interesting to see statistics on reviewer responses to find out whether women really are more reliable as reviewers than men (as my general experience tells me). If I am correct in my view, and if it is somehow made public that women are more reliable than men as reviewers, the mere fact that this is so will make editors likely to choose women as reviewers.
On the other hand, reviewing is a thankless job and I job that has little impact one a person’s CV. So if women review more than men, they may be at a disadvantage with regard to their academic carreer…
July 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I support A. However in the field covered by my journal, orthopaedics, there is a very low percentage of senior female practitioners, and virtually no female academics. Efforts to improve this are hampered by the subject not being popular with female medical graduates. We do have a number of female reviewers and many more authors, often from the Allied Health Professionals. This question has highlighted that we need female board members.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
c. Journals should focus on publishing the best science available, regardless of the sex of the author!