EDI(torial): equality, diversity, and inclusion and platelets - 2021

Amidst the challenges faced in 2020, the global COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns shone a spotlight on systemic racism and inequality. “I can’t breathe”- the news broke that George Floyd, an African American man, had been killed during an arrest in Minneapolis. This moment highlighted issues that are known but too often swept under the carpet. It reignited the Black Lives Matter movement, serving as a call to action and making it clear that this is a global issue and not simply an ‘American’ problem. Whilst protected characteristics (e.g. gender, disability, sexual orientation) are fertile ground for discriminatory behavior, these characteristics are not standalone and we must consider intersectionality (i.e. one person may possess multiple protected characteristics) when designing interventions to achieve equality for all.

Why is this being discussed in an editorial for Platelets? Academia and its associated publication schema are not exempt from these same issues of inequality; this is not limited to race, but also extends to gender identity, disabilities, geography and sexual orientation. The editorial board of Platelets feels strongly that none of these factors should affect a person’s ability to navigate the peer review process or have their research published. This raises the question of whether we should be striving for equality or equity in the context of a peer-reviewed journal. Whilst we acknowledge that structural inequality exists, which may alter people’s ability to conduct science, this is not something we can alter independent of greater societal change. Rather, we aim to ensure that the practices within the journal are fair and equal, such that all manuscripts are judged on their scientific merit and interest.

The largest challenge to changing culture is that there is not a one size fits all solution. To better assess the most appropriate and effective strategies, it is first critical to consider some of the marginalized groups in more detail.

Gender Equality

There is a “leaky pipeline” for people who identify as female in academic research, particularly when looking at the most senior levels. Martinez and colleagues reported that whilst 45% of postdoctoral positions at USA institutions were held by women, a significant number were lost at transition to principal investigator status where only 19% of tenured positions were held by women [1]. There is also evidence that women are less represented in publications; papers with a female last author are 6.4% less likely to be accepted when reviewed by an all-male panel [2]. Interestingly, a self-selecting pool of speakers for an online #BloodandBone seminar series attracted 60% female speakers at trainee/early career stage, but this was reduced to 40% for established researchers [3]. This gender discrepancy for speakers was similar to that for female last authors in the hematology journal Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (38% female senior authors reported July 2017 through July 2018) [4]. Whilst the barriers to gender equality are many and varied, publication records are critical to progressing academic careers. Therefore, as a journal we have a duty to ensure that our practices are equal for researchers irrespective of their gender identity.

Racial Inequality and Geographical Bias

Just as we acknowledge there is a gender gap in academia, there is a problem when it comes to Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) reaching senior academic roles. Data from the 2020 AdvanceHE report shows that there are only 25 black female professors in the UK. Academic burnout, access to resources, increased levels of harassment, and a perception that they must work harder to be accepted have been reported by our BIPOC colleagues as barriers to career progression [5]. A pre-print study of author-reviewer homophily in peer review indicates that discrepancies in acceptance rates associated with geographical affiliation [6]. Geographical factors may also contribute to inequality in the peer review process, as peer-reviewers are more likely to accept articles submitted from within their own country [7].

LGBTQ+ Inequality

Being “out” as a member of the LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and anyone who is sexually and/or gender diverse) community should not affect your ability to conduct science. However, surveys of LGBTQ+ scientists highlight instances of discrimination and concerns over the impact their identity may have upon their careers [8–10]. Members of the transgender community experience greater levels of bullying and harassment and are most likely to consider leaving academia as a result. They also face additional barriers as transitioning involves changing their name and without clear pathways to update names on publications, this can lead to them being “outed” by their publication history where their deadname (previous name) is used. Faced with this choice, some researchers may choose to abandon publications altogether. In 2020, the American Chemical Society updated their publication policy to allow authors to update their names on publications to avoid this issue. Such a policy should be actively considered by publishers.

Moving Forward

How might we tackle some of these barriers and improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) at Platelets? In 2020 Platelets officially signed up as a supporter of Pride in STEM’s LGBTQ+ STEM Day, which is designed to showcase and support LGBTQ+ scientists. Overcoming EDI barriers may be achieved by diversifying the pool of peer reviewers and editors that are making decisions on publications. This could extend to increasing the number of early career researcher/trainee reviewers, thus diversifying scientific perspective, and serving to train future academic leaders.

In 2021, Platelets commits to conduct a survey of its editorial board, reviewers, and contributing authors to evaluate where we stand on EDI-related issues. We are also interested to hear your opinions and comments on how Platelets can improve equality, diversity and inclusion. All data and suggestions will be considered to identify areas for improvement.

Declaration of Interests

The author reports no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

KAT is supported by a British Heart Foundation Project Grant (PG/17/76/33082).