Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?

J. A. Teixeira da Silva
{"title":"Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As companies advance policies pertaining to social reform, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the issue of protocol, and how those objectives are being achieved, invites debate. In particular, methods that infringe on authors’ rights or freedoms need to be scrutinized. Online submission systems (OSSs) are typically – and often exclusively – used by authors for submitting their papers. The present paper documents the use of OSSs by 33 journals published by Elsevier to harvest authors’ responses to issues and policies related to DEI. This is achieved via a mandatory survey prior to accessing the OSS. Here, a major concern is the violation of authors’ rights due to the presence of a barrier to entry to the OSS, which prevents them from submitting a paper and thus contravenes a core principle of DEI. Results of an investigation into the transparency of Elsevier’s 33 journals with regard to the same DEI principles that they require of their contributing authors revealed four main findings with regard to the gender diversity of their editorial boards: 1) in only six journals (18%) did 100% of the editors indicate their gender; 2) in 14 journals (42%), the editorial board page of the journal did not carry any statistics related to gender; 3) in five journals (15%), some editors preferred not to disclose their gender (in the case of Discourse, Context & Media, 33% of the responding editors preferred not to disclose their gender); 4) in all journals for which gender statistics were supplied (19, or 58%), none of the responding editors indicated a “non-binary or gender diverse” status. This paper suggests that Elsevier needs to revisit and reform its DEI policies related to editorial boards, as well as to rethink the current mandatory survey for authors using its journals’ OSSs.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editor and Publisher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As companies advance policies pertaining to social reform, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the issue of protocol, and how those objectives are being achieved, invites debate. In particular, methods that infringe on authors’ rights or freedoms need to be scrutinized. Online submission systems (OSSs) are typically – and often exclusively – used by authors for submitting their papers. The present paper documents the use of OSSs by 33 journals published by Elsevier to harvest authors’ responses to issues and policies related to DEI. This is achieved via a mandatory survey prior to accessing the OSS. Here, a major concern is the violation of authors’ rights due to the presence of a barrier to entry to the OSS, which prevents them from submitting a paper and thus contravenes a core principle of DEI. Results of an investigation into the transparency of Elsevier’s 33 journals with regard to the same DEI principles that they require of their contributing authors revealed four main findings with regard to the gender diversity of their editorial boards: 1) in only six journals (18%) did 100% of the editors indicate their gender; 2) in 14 journals (42%), the editorial board page of the journal did not carry any statistics related to gender; 3) in five journals (15%), some editors preferred not to disclose their gender (in the case of Discourse, Context & Media, 33% of the responding editors preferred not to disclose their gender); 4) in all journals for which gender statistics were supplied (19, or 58%), none of the responding editors indicated a “non-binary or gender diverse” status. This paper suggests that Elsevier needs to revisit and reform its DEI policies related to editorial boards, as well as to rethink the current mandatory survey for authors using its journals’ OSSs.
出版商是否应该使用在线提交系统来收集作者对多样性、公平性和包容性的反应?
随着公司推进与社会改革相关的政策,包括多样性、公平和包容(DEI),礼仪问题以及如何实现这些目标引发了争论。特别是,需要仔细审查侵犯作者权利或自由的方法。在线提交系统(oss)通常——而且经常是专门——被作者用来提交他们的论文。本文记录了爱思唯尔出版的33种期刊对开源软件的使用情况,以收集作者对与DEI相关的问题和政策的回应。这是通过访问OSS之前的强制性调查来实现的。在这里,一个主要的担忧是由于进入OSS的障碍而侵犯了作者的权利,这阻止了他们提交论文,从而违反了DEI的核心原则。一项针对爱思唯尔33种期刊对其投稿作者所要求的相同DEI原则透明度的调查结果揭示了关于编辑委员会性别多样性的四个主要发现:1)只有6种期刊(18%)的编辑100%表明了自己的性别;2) 14种(42%)期刊的编委会页面没有任何与性别相关的统计数据;3)在5种期刊(15%)中,一些编辑倾向于不披露性别(在Discourse, Context & Media的案例中,33%的受访编辑倾向于不披露性别);4)在所有提供性别统计数据的期刊中(19份,占58%),没有编辑表示“非二元或性别多样化”。这篇论文建议爱思唯尔需要重新审视和改革其与编辑委员会相关的DEI政策,以及重新考虑目前对使用其期刊开源软件的作者进行的强制性调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信