# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pat Mitchell: Dangerous times call for dangerous women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pat Mitchell has nothing left to prove and much less to lose -- she's become a "dangerous woman." Not dangerous as in feared, she says, but fearless: a force to be reckoned with.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In conversation with Denise Hawkes

In this episode I talk to Professor Denise Hawkes, Professor of Education Economics and Head of the School of International Business and Economics at the University of Greenwich. We discuss why we chose to pursue higher education and continue studying; the role our gender, ethnicity and background impacts this choice; deciding to go into management and making a difference from the position of Head of School; and the shocking figures we find when looking at gender and BAME gaps and discrimination in academia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In conversation with Denise Hawkes | The Professoriate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Professor Olga Martin-Ortega talks to women, and people who identify themselves as women, in academia about their lives and work; the choices and decisions they made to get where they are; the women who inspired them and how to empower women at earlier stages in their academic development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In conversation with Tracey Reynolds

In this episode Professor of International Law, Olga Martin-Ortega, talks to Professor of Social Sciences Tracey Reynolds about her journey into research; 20 years working with migrant families, black communities and women; creative and participatory methods; the women how guided and inspired her; and what does it mean to be a Female Professor today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In conversation with Tracey Reynolds | The Professoriate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Professor Olga Martin-Ortega talks to women, and people who identify themselves as women, in academia about their lives and work; the choices and decisions they made to get where they are; the women who inspired them and how to empower women at earlier stages in their academic development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Dream team @TEDx @UniofGreenwich @Sust_Greenwich @SAPIENS_Network @electrowatch @ResearchScene #tedx #sustainableprocurement pic.twitter.com/I4D1d3Npc9
— The BHRE (@UoGbhre) November 5, 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Publishers often send me academic writing books to review. I happily look through every book, but if I think I can't wholeheartedly recommend it, I just don't write a review. I don't want to crush a fellow author's soul. The rejected titles sit sadly, in small piles of guilt, on the bottom of one of ...continue reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just like the horse whisperer - but with more pages

# data[].attributes.headline
How can we reframe leadership attributes and skills and acknowledge that previously there has been a tendency to see leaders as the decision maker while true leaders enable stakeholder decision making? or WE decisions.

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we reframe leadership attributes and skills and acknowledge that previously there has been a tendency to see leaders as the decision maker while true leaders enable stakeholder decision making? or WE decisions.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do you feel including men in  conversations about equality/inclusion? Is it helpful? Would it prevent progress?         

# data[].attributes.subject
How do you feel including men in  conversations about equality/inclusion? Is it helpful? Would it prevent progress?         

# data[].attributes.headline
How can you manage your workloads/active research/fieldwork/ care responsibilities/ personal life sustainably without burning out?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can you manage your workloads/active research/fieldwork/ care responsibilities/ personal life sustainably without burning out?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sarah W. Davies,

Hollie M. Putnam,

Tracy Ainsworth,

Julia K. Baum,

Colleen B. Bove,

Sarah C. Crosby,

Isabelle M. Côté,

Anne Duplouy,

Robinson W. Fulweiler,

Alyssa J. Griffin

Subject Areas

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Abstract

Success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist "rewards" by prioritizing citations and impact factors. These metrics are flawed and biased against already marginalized groups and fail to accurately capture the breadth of individuals' meaningful scientific impacts. We advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We outline pathways for a paradigm shift in scientific values based on multidimensional mentorship and promoting mentee well-being. These actions will require collective efforts supported by academic leaders and administrators to drive essential systemic change.

Citation: Davies SW, Putnam HM, Ainsworth T, Baum JK, Bove CB, Crosby SC, et al. (2021) Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biol 19(6): e3001282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001282

Published: June 15, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Davies et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: LGBTQ+, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others; NSERC, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; PAESMEM, Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring; STEMM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine; SWAN, Scientific Women's Academic Network

Overview

"The most dangerous phrase in the language is: We've always done it this way."

-Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

Experiencing challenges related to justice, equity, diversity and inclusion in science is universal across disciplines [ 1]. Strong evidence highlights the breadth of biases, yet action-based solutions have not been broadly adopted, and systemic change remains elusive. Under the pressure for "objective" metric-based "success" and "impact," multiple biases are perpetuated in science. For example, flawed interpretations of data with damaging conclusions are published [ 2, 3], including papers requiring retraction [ 4]. Here, our interdisciplinary, international team of women scientists publicly acknowledges and denounces the pervasive sexist and racist structures persisting within the value systems, which typify science. We further advocate to accelerate the pace of positive change in science by building on the advancements made through systemically marginalized groups, including the prior and ongoing efforts of women, Black people (we recognize this language may not be used commonly internationally and use it here to explicitly acknowledge that systemic racism disproportionately affects the lives of Black people, particularly within the United States), indigenous people, people of color, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others (LGBTQ+), and their allies (e.g., [ 5- 9]). We (1) highlight long-standing problems associated with narrow definitions of success and impact in science; (2) advocate for expanding measures of success beyond citations to value the multifaceted nature of scientific impact ( Fig 1); and (3) propose a model that values the recruitment and retention of scientists from diverse backgrounds through building safe and healthy work environments ( Fig 2).

This bias is analogous to the streetlight effect where (A) citations are valued because that is where we look, despite the fact that they perpetuate gender and racial biases as metrics of success. We advocate for (B), an expanded view of success and impact that is multifaceted and includes critical areas of mentorship, inclusion, and diversity.

We argue that the narrow mentorship model based on the top-down "publish or perish" approach to success and impact facilitates processes that lead to a reduction in diversity and innovation (illustrated by the inverse gray pyramid) and a detrimental STEMM culture that supports a limited subset of scholars. By contrast, a multidimensional mentorship model supported by those in leadership roles (e.g., by university and college presidents, chancellors, and provosts) working across academic institutions will incorporate diverse measures of success and impact to create system-wide change (illustrated by the purple pyramid). We argue that the latter approach can lead to increased innovation that will transform STEMM culture where processes, which support the 2 models, and outcomes of each, are side highlighted within the oval shapes. STEMM, Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine.

It is imperative for those holding positions of power, privilege, and visibility to take informed and strategic action rather than only engage in a performative manner. Strong actions that support justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion are essential for the accelerated evolution of the value system in science. Collectively, these changes are key to generating a greater capacity for innovation, which is essential for addressing the challenges of the present and future, such as pandemics and climate change ( Fig 2).

Pivoting the paradigm to ensure equitable evaluation in science

(1) Citation counts are biased

One of the many detrimental constructs underpinning academic science is the "publish or perish" model that celebrates the quantity of publications, citation rates, and impact factor scores as the primary, and often sole, indicators of success and impact [ 10- 12]. Citation metrics, which have been widely used across most research areas due to their quantitative nature and easy estimation, influence career advancement at all levels including graduate opportunities, funding success, career positions, awards, distinctions, and tenure and promotion. However, a lack of diversity among the most cited scientific authors is driven by historical demographics of faculty and those in academic leadership positions [ 13- 16]. While there have been recent successes in increasing diversity among trainees and early-career researchers [ 8, 9], differential recruitment, retention, and promotion rates with respect to age, sex, gender, race, and ethnicity continue to perpetuate the lack of diversity among all career levels of scientists [ 14, 17- 19]. This issue is self-perpetuating due to reliance on citation metrics, which reflect deeply entrenched biases and exclusionary networks that disadvantage systemically marginalized groups, and these citation metric biases continue to rise globally [ 20].

Sexism in science publishing is ubiquitous. Women (throughout this manuscript, we use the term "women," by which we intend to respectfully include and acknowledge the experiences and challenges of all who identify as women and/or womxn and also acknowledge that these and other challenges also exist for nonbinary individuals) are uniformly less cited than men, even though this issue is consistently well acknowledged [ 21- 24]. Recently, the citation gap between genders was found to be as large as 30% across 13 Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) disciplines [ 16], and this gap has been documented across a breadth of journals [ 25]. These patterns are partially explained by men exhibiting higher rates of self-citation [ 22, 23] and women having shorter career lengths than men [ 16]. However, decisions on whom to cite may also reflect exclusionary scientific networks that coalesce at scholarly meetings and conferences that, despite recent efforts in improving diversity among participants [ 26- 28], primarily cater to established white men from privileged universities [ 28- 31]. In addition, in comparison to men, women receive more manuscript rejections [ 32- 34], are less likely to be published in prestigious journals (which typically have high citation rates) [ 35], and are less likely to be invited to write commentaries [ 36]. These issues may stem from women's scholarly writing being held to a higher standard than men's by editors and peer reviewers, placing penalties on women's productivity, with excessive time spent reworking old research at the cost of conducting new research [ 37]. Sex-specific differences in manuscript decisions may also arise from conscious and unconscious biases that can impact reviewer assignment [ 38] and peer review scores [ 27]. Moreover, the impact of unprofessional peer reviewer comments, defined as "any statement that is unethical or irrelevant to the nature of the work" [ 39], have disproportionately negative effects for women and nonbinary people relative to men [ 39]. We also would like to acknowledge that biases experienced by women are likely to be exacerbated for nonbinary individuals, and, so far, little attention has been given to the effects on these groups (but see positive change [ 40]).

Pervasive racism in science also drives substantial and systemic biases in publication rates, citation rates, and editorial positions [ 24]. Publication-related metrics show distinct patterns of bias against racially and/or ethnically diverse scientific teams, which experience more than 5% lower acceptance rates and fewer citations than less diverse author teams [ 41]. Citational segregation-where authors prefer citing authors from the same racial/ethnic group(s)-has been demonstrated with white authors citing other white authors more frequently [ 24]. This particular bias further reduces the circulation and intellectual acknowledgement of nonwhite scholars' work and the diversity of viewpoints they bring. Additionally, "high-quality" research is implicitly associated with high-income countries [ 42], thereby limiting the dissemination of research by scientists from lower-income countries. Moreover, because 98% of scientific journals are published in English, success is related to English proficiency or access to additional editorial support. Scholars who are not fluent in English are at a distinct disadvantage in the publication process, further exacerbating the global gap in citations and research dissemination [ 43].

Together, gender, racial, and other biases interact and accumulate, often elevating cisgender white males to much higher status than deserved given their contributions to science [ 44, 45]. As such, the unwavering focus on citation-based metrics as indicators of success ignores the breadth of scientific evidence showing these metrics are unreliable, inaccurate, and damaging. While the history, outcome, and current treatment of these biases can vary across disciplines, it is clear that continued use of these metrics perpetuates substantial gender, racial, and ethnic biases, as well as reduced representation of diverse scholarship.

Many efforts to improve diversity in science disciplines have not yet been successful [ 46- 49]. In fact, gender and racial citation biases remain stable or have even worsened over the last half century [ 16, 21- 24, 41, 50], highlighting that efforts to change the system have, by and large, failed to remove systemic biases. Clearly, assessing scientific impact, and thereby assigning value to an individual's scientific contribution, exclusively-or even primarily-through citations of peer-reviewed literature reflects and amplifies the existing numerous biases that remain embedded within science. Reliance on citation metrics as the primary gauge of impact will continue to limit the advancement of marginalized groups and diminish their scientific contributions [ 24], representing a loss of diverse talent, perspectives, and approaches.

(2) Expanding scientific impact beyond citations

Ignoring the breadth of areas where scientists have strong impacts creates an unduly narrow view of the many avenues through which scientists can contribute to intellectual advances, applied science, and equitable communication and translation of science to the public ( Fig 1A). This narrow view excludes the real-world impacts within the scientific system ( Fig 1B). Even if citation metrics were not biased, using citations as a proxy for success supports the false paradigm that scientists lack impact if they do not (or cannot) publish and/or have chosen "alternative" career paths-a phrase that falsely suggests that academic roles are the only dominant or valued careers for scientists [ 51, 52]. Notably, scholars holding academic positions with high teaching loads, mentoring responsibilities, service requirements, and/or administrative work, as well as those who have chosen careers outside of academia, make critical and diverse contributions to science. Nonacademic careers often place less emphasis on publishing or allow less time to lead or contribute to publications, yet nonetheless provide influential routes for training new scientists, move science broadly into the public realm, and inform critical policy and decision-making [ 53, 54].

Beyond the university classroom and research group, valuing the broader impacts of research is also critical. The cocreation and dissemination of scientific knowledge through collaboration with industry, implementation of government policy, public outreach and media engagement, societal service through science communication, and deferring to the guidance of the communities in which science takes place have the potential to center communities outside research institutions in critical topics [ 55, 56]. Additionally, these intentional actions can aid in restoring public trust in science and promoting the advancement of diverse groups in science careers (e.g., [ 57]). In fact, funding agencies (e.g., Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council in Canada, The National Science Foundation in the United States, and the Research Excellence Framework in the United Kingdom) are now including these contributions in the evaluation criteria of the quality of researchers, demonstrating that funding bodies are beginning to play a critical role in normalizing and rewarding the work that scholars do to connect to communities and are key contributors to the valuing of this work. Together, this shift in evaluation criteria indicates that quantifying these impacts is possible and meaningful to science and society more broadly.

Another key avenue of impact on the scientific system is through training upcoming generations of scientists. This role necessitates diverse mentoring and pedagogical skills essential to attract, engage, retain, and elevate scientists in training from different geographies, social-cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, and career paths. Mentorship is fundamental to efforts to drive a transformation to a fair and safe scientific culture, and we explore the value of mentorship in more detail below in Section 3.

(3) Broadening the system to value mentorship, diversity, and well-being

Broadening the definitions of success and impact provides an essential foundation to shift the academic system and scientific culture. Through valuing multidimensional mentoring, we can promote decisive actions to improve justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion ( Fig 2).

Valuing the impact of multidimensional mentorship.

Mentorship is a bidirectional relationship that changes as the relationship evolves, and these relationships may vary from being highly formal, structured, and with very specific goals, assignments, and timelines to less formal or clearly articulated relationships [ 58]. While a traditional mentorship relationship can be between an academic supervisor and a mentee (graduate student, postdoctoral scholar, undergraduate researcher, etc.), mentorship can come in a variety of forms that include peer, supervisor, career development mentor, and/or personal mentor [ 58, 59]. For the purposes of this perspective, we use a broad definition of mentorship that encompasses dynamic mentorship and diverse relationships. We follow the frameworks of scholars who have established the ideas of mentor networks or webs, with mentorship evolving as the needs and aspirations of mentees change through each career stage [ 60- 63].

High-quality mentorship greatly benefits mentees, since mentors are essential in determining career outcomes [ 64, 65]. Research examining a wide range of mentoring relationships (e.g., in government, hospitals, and business) demonstrates that deep engagement in mentorship also leads to a greater sense of job satisfaction, higher commitment to the institution, and higher career success for mentors [ 66]. Cultivating these outcomes within science could reduce attrition rates often associated with low levels of job satisfaction [ 67] and a lack of institutional community [ 68]. The benefits of multidimensional and networked mentoring across career stages, especially by mentors with multiple identities from marginalized groups (i.e., intersectional identities), are critical to increasing representation, recruitment, and retention in the scientific system [ 58, 69- 74]. Good mentors can foster a sense of belonging for mentees with diverse backgrounds [ 75], especially if the mentor belongs to, or strongly associates with, a particular identity, which further emphasizes the importance of inclusive representation in science.

Within academia, outstanding mentorship is invaluable [ 76, 77]. However, this mentorship is traditionally quantified by mentee productivity, which is assessed by the same traditional metrics (e.g., [ 10]) that have significant biases (see Section 1 above). These metrics fail to acknowledge the diverse value of mentorship, and, thus, reevaluating mentoring practices and how impact is measured will benefit a diverse and intersectional group of early-career scientists [ 78, 79]. We propose that a broader lens of mentorship quality be acknowledged and employed by institutions and funding agencies, which would provide a more holistic measure of scientific impact and reward high-quality mentorship (Figs 1 and 2).

Holistic valuation of mentorship quality includes the contributions from mentors and the achievements of mentees [ 61, 70, 80]. In addition to research productivity, metrics encompassing the breadth of mentorship dimensions can incorporate the mentee's acquired skills, tools provided to the mentee, mentee retention, career commitment, self-efficacy, mentee satisfaction, and overall group culture [ 81- 83]. Mentorship quality could then be quantitatively tracked by institutions throughout an individual's career within or outside of academia using surveys such as the Global Measure of Mentorship Practices as adapted for STEMM postsecondary education [ 84]. These metrics could be compared empirically against institutional or national statistics to gauge scientific impact.

Institutions should also elevate strong mentorship by both establishing internal awards for mentor excellence and increasing the weight of such awards in promotions or tenure assessments. Awards such as the National Science Foundation's Presidential Award for Excellence for Science Math and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM), the Australian Museum Eureka Prize, and the Nature Research Awards for Mentoring in Science already exist to recognize outstanding mentors. In addition, placing value on mentorship by funding agencies (e.g., National Science Foundation's Broader Impacts [ 85]; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) contributions to training [ 86]; and Athena Scientific Women's Academic Network (SWAN) Award Scheme [ 87]) creates further incentives to achieve mentorship excellence. These prestigious recognitions, coupled with funding and incentives to support mentees from marginalized groups, represent strong steps forward in valuing mentoring and highlighting the efforts and impacts of individuals working to support the next generation of researchers from diverse backgrounds and/or identities.

Mentorship can promote justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in science.

An important avenue in promoting justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in science is through effective mentorship strategies beyond the traditional dyadic and top-down relationships, such as creating mentorship networks as we discussed above [ 60, 88]. The idea of a comprehensive, singular mentor suggests that one person can meet all mentee needs; however, each individual has unique needs-especially those who identify as members of systemically marginalized groups [ 89- 91]. For example, some individuals may seek mentorship for academic and career advice alone, while others may pursue mentors with similar personal identities or experiences for support with the unique situations these individuals face in science. Mentoring networks are effective in allowing individuals to seek out appropriate mentorships to meet their identified goals and associated needs. By implementing the use of mentorship networks for researchers at all levels, institutions can better connect individuals with appropriate mentors that can support the success of one another [ 60, 90]. Because mentorship networks support the long-term career goals of the mentees [ 92], institutions that support these networks are investing in higher retention of scientists from marginalized groups [ 93].

Mentoring should not be limited to students or early career stages. Mentoring throughout one's career provides important mechanisms for learning new skills, broadening career path options, and attaining life goals. For example, formal mentoring could be available for individuals transitioning toward administration. This is particularly important for helping to build a more equitable community as administrators often hold the most power for implementing change at institutions. If such leaders are trained in how to build inclusive cultures, change will likely be quicker and broader.

While multidimensional mentoring will facilitate a more inclusive culture, specific strategies are also needed to change the systemic sexism and racism that pervade institutions [ 93, 94]. A first step is to identify barriers to diversity, followed by policies and training designed to support transformative institutional change [ 93]. These include shifting community culture through communication, collaboration, and training to support interventions and leadership. For example, transitioning from a "gatekeeping" to a "groundskeeping" approach at all levels of the academic hierarchy is a key component of the required shift in culture to address pervasive obstacles to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion [ 95].

For these efforts to be achieved, faculty and researchers need to be educated and supported with structured programs that embed these principles in teaching, research, and mentoring (e.g., [ 96]). For example, training in inclusive pedagogical approaches (i.e., inclusive or deep teaching [ 97, 98]), bystander intervention training, and anti-bullying and antiracist mentoring and teaching practices can be made part of the job expectation for those in supervisory and mentoring roles. This training may also include critical pedagogy that examines and challenges the systems of oppression that shape society [ 99- 101] and promotes both the intellectual growth and well-being of students and mentees [ 102]. To ensure that training opportunities become valued by participants, institutions may consider implementing mandatory participation by requiring training for career advancement or as prerequisites for recruiting mentees. However, training programs should be mindfully designed to engage those who may complete training for inauthentic reasons. Discussions of topics covered in training should become standard practice at regular events including faculty meetings and retreats and graduate student association meetings. Undergraduate programs can include discussions of unconscious bias and how such biases influence classroom dynamics. When it comes to hiring, candidates should be assessed across multiple axes to ensure the recruitment of individuals who are dedicated to building a stronger and more equitable community. Leaders need to work hard to develop creative ways to promote justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in science to dismantle the barriers that prevent healthy and innovative science workplaces. We therefore advocate for the continuation and development of awards and incentives that recognize and reward authentic efforts to do so.

Unfortunately, large gaps in the implementation of effective strategies to dismantle discriminatory systems still persist. Over the last decade, a range of initiatives in academia, industry, and government have been implemented to support the attraction, retention, and progression of people from systemically marginalized groups at national and international levels. To normalize and move these initiatives forward, we must leverage the many recommendations that have already been made for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in science [ 5- 7, 96, 103, 104]. Evaluating these actions and policies within a scientific framework and developing best practices is a start to implementing effective strategies [ 105]. Scientific institutions and funding agencies must implement initiatives that address the systemic discrimination and biases in student admissions, recruitment, grant funding, and promotions [ 93, 106- 109]. Institutional commitment is needed to strategically implement meaningful equity and inclusion approaches with effective accountability mechanisms in place [ 110].

Transformed science culture: Supporting a safe and healthy environment.

The role of inclusive mentoring practices (e.g., sponsoring, counseling, networking, and advocating; Fig 2) is unequivocal in providing essential tools to foster justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion for mentees, preventing toxic mentor-mentee relationships, and overcoming barriers and access in STEMM careers [ 111, 112]. Social belonging and valuing of multiple identities in science reinforces achievement [ 9, 96, 113, 114], and diverse teams have been shown to increase the rate of innovation and collective creativity [ 115- 117]. While good mentorship can foster a sense of belonging in science for the mentee, relationships of many mentees from marginalized groups with their mentors-who are often from the majority group-are not always positive, leading to health issues, such as insomnia and anxiety [ 118], and lower retention of these groups in science (reviewed in [ 93, 104]). In order to effectively mentor, all mentors-particularly those who are not familiar with the experiences and perspectives of systemically marginalized scholars-should engage with cultures, communities, and perspectives that differ from their own, connect with communities that are working toward creating justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, and support institutional change already underway. In addition, increasing representation from marginalized communities throughout institutional hierarchies provides greater opportunities for mentees to find mentors with which to build meaningful relationships.

Of particular concern is the recently highlighted decline in mental health of many academics and a growing crisis at the graduate level [ 119]. Graduate students are at least twice as likely to experience mental health challenges, such as anxiety and depression, compared to the general population with equivalent education [ 120]. This trend is even more striking for women of color in STEMM, who are facing systemic sexism and racism, along with daily microaggressions and safety concerns [ 121]. Sexual minorities and LGBTQ+-identifying people are also subject to discrimination that adversely affects their well-being, mental health and, ultimately, retention in STEMM fields [ 74, 104]. Laboratory work, field work, and simple existence in the academy can often place marginalized groups, including those with disabilities, at risk of injury, harassment, bullying, and assault (e.g., [ 103, 122- 124]). To combat these challenges, specific strategies for safety and well-being [ 125, 126] must be supported at the research group, departmental, institutional, and funding organization levels.

Moreover, destructive mentoring has frequently gone unchecked in academia [ 123], often because of the appearance of a superficially productive, well-functioning, or supportive working environment. This is in large part due to power dynamics within the formal mentor-mentee relationship, as academia was constructed on a model with a top-down hierarchy ( Fig 2). Key future directions to redress this issue include proactive policies at the institutional and departmental levels, which could include formalizing mentee and advisor responsibilities and expectations [ 127, 128]. Initiatives can be tailored to empower mentees to manage their relationship with their research mentors and for faculty to advise, educate, and supervise using inclusive techniques [ 112]. Further, there should be clear procedures to change behaviors displayed by potentially abusive mentors and significant consequences to ensure the prevention of negative impacts on future mentees (e.g., [ 129]). Actions such as facilitating safe ways in which mentees can provide feedback to their mentor-whether positive or negative-is a start to empowering mentees and aligning expectations [ 130]. Institutional oversight in developing a strong mentorship culture, support for mentor-mentee training, and responsibility for administrative interventions are critical aspects of ensuring a safe environment for all.

Institutions are at the foundation of creating a culture that promotes community wellness, beginning with a clear mission that aligns with the safety and health of mentees and mentors, especially those from marginalized groups [ 131]. Indeed, it is the institution's responsibility to ensure there is a specific training focused on effective mentoring practices and modeling wellness for mentees [ 93, 132]. Mentees and mentors need to be trained to appropriately flag, assess, and address mental health and safety concerns using targeted and early-intervention roadmaps in safe spaces. This training should be made readily available via a variety of modalities, such as mental health first aid training (e.g., [ 133]). An enhanced focus on health, safety, and accessibility in science, as well as institutional support for mentorship assessment and growth, will lead to improved retention of scientists from diverse backgrounds and increased community health and wellness ( Fig 2). While it has become increasingly standard for institutions to publicly profess commitments to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, without sufficient investment of time, energy, and funding, these commitments will remain performative [ 134].

Conclusions

To dismantle the problematic reward system and create an inclusive and innovative community, the scientific system needs to move beyond the current narrow measures of success and impact to focus on holistic assessment ( Fig 1). Acknowledging that there is a diverse range of contributions and career pathways will broaden the value system in science. By embracing inclusive approaches and not forcing people to assimilate into sexist and racist norms, we can grow a more equitable model for science that addresses and actively works to counter injustices. The challenges associated with changing a deeply embedded institutional history, culture, and structure toward a different inclusive value system will require institutions to champion a "new norm" to bring change at a global scale. Such a shift must be embraced by all and led by those currently in positions of power and privilege. This shift requires not only specific proactive actions and reforms to institutionalize change but also mechanisms to monitor implementation and provide feedback optimizing an adaptive and dynamic structure.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the many scholars who came before us and fought hard for change. We also express our deep gratitude to the many amazing mentors who demonstrate the attributes of good mentorship discussed in this manuscript. And we thank our mentees who inspire us and motivate us to fight for change. Recognizing that privilege is relative, changes over time, and is experienced differently by each individual, the authors of this manuscript would like to generally acknowledge the relative privilege we have in our diverse roles in science. And importantly, through that privilege, we want to highlight our commitment to making these conditions that confer privilege accessible to others.

References

1. 31. Shishkova E, Kwiecien NW, Hebert AS, et al. Gender diversity in a STEM subfield-analysis of a large scientific society and its annual conferences. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2017. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jasms.8b05451?casa_tokenGU-dhjf8H34AAAAA:2r3UnqFWAVvt4A_ejayXzuVYUKaBEcaOLEATA8dJJVMe-XeHel9Lxcnx57qNUU0W_zr9VUQB-nQbNyg3.

2. 88. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Committee on Effective Mentoring, Dahlberg ML, Byars-Winston A. Summary. National Academies Press (US); 2019.

3. 89. Bertrand Jones T, Ford JR, Pierre DF, Davis-Maye D. Thriving in the Academy: Culturally Responsive Mentoring for Black Women's Early Career Success. In: Crimmins G, editor. Strategies for Supporting Inclusion and Diversity in the Academy: Higher Education, Aspiration and Inequality. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 123-140.

4. 101. Freire P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing USA; 2018.

5. 102. Hooks B. Teaching To Transgress. Routledge. 1994.

6. 111. Kendricks KD, Nedunuri KV, Arment AR. Minority student perceptions of the impact of mentoring to enhance academic performance in STEM disciplines. J STEM Educ. 2013;14. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Krishnakumar_Nedunuri/publication/332857816_Minority_Student_Perceptions_of_the_Impact_of_Mentoring_to_Enhance_Academic_Performance_in_STEM_Disciplines/links/5cccf3d0458515712e9033f0/Minority-Student-Perceptions-of-the-Impact-of-Mentoring-to-Enhance-Academic-Performance-in-STEM-Disciplines.pdf.

7. 123. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. National Academies Press; 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Essay argues that success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist 'rewards' by prioritizing citations and impact factors; the authors advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should institutions and journals anonymise the names and genders of authors and applicants when hiring or reviewing?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should institutions and journals anonymise the names and genders of authors and applicants when hiring or reviewing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Danielle S. Bassett

Correspondence

Affiliations

Department of Bioengineering, School of Engineering & Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Department of Physics & Astronomy, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

The Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA

Search for articles by this author

Reference lists of neuroscience articles show marked gender imbalances. To mitigate this disparity, we discuss relevant ethical considerations and offer practical recommendations to scientists of all ages. We envision an equitable future by all scientists for all scientists.

Main Text

The work of scholars and activists in the scientific community has pushed issues of gender and diversity to the forefront of the academy's consciousness in recent years. Discussions of "leaky pipelines" and "manels" are now prevalent, and many who were previously unaware of the scope of bias and injustice have been forced to reckon with the lived experiences of their peers. There may be a temptation to imagine one's own field as an exception, but recent work showing gender imbalances in neuroscience authorship, prizes, and speaking roles indicates otherwise (

Schrouff et al., 2019

Schrouff J.

Pischedda D.

Genon S.

Fryns G.

Pinho A.L.

Vassena E.

Liuzzi A.G.

Ferreira F.S.

). There then may be a temptation to point out that those decisions lie largely in the hands of the most powerful among us, like journal editors, society boards, department chairs, program officers, and conference organizers. Beyond ignoring the potential power of confronting such imbalances when they appear, the focus on the decisions of a few key people obscures the ways in which many imbalances are created and perpetuated by researchers at all levels. One important example is imbalance in papers' citation rates, the presence of which could have downstream effects on, for example, conference invitations, grant awards, promotion, inclusion in syllabi, and even student evaluations. Indeed, lower citation rates for women-led work have been observed in fields as varied as philosophy, political science, astronomy, and international relations (

,

,

,

,

Thiem et al., 2018

Thiem Y.

Sealey K.F.

Ferrer A.E.

Trott A.M.

Kennison R.

Just ideas? The status and future of publication ethics in philosophy: A white paper.

Supported by the The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2018

). In a recent paper (

Dworkin et al., 2020

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

), we find that this citation imbalance extends to neuroscience as well ( Figure 1, left).

In this work, we investigated the gender makeup of reference lists from five top neuroscience journals (

Dworkin et al., 2020

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

): Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, Brain, Journal of Neuroscience, and NeuroImage. By examining reference lists, we were able to determine that not only are women-led papers cited less often than would be expected if gender was not a factor, but also that this effect is driven primarily by the reference lists of the papers that are first- and last-authored by men. This imbalance remains after accounting for various potentially relevant factors, including publication year, author seniority, journal of publication, article type, research subfield, and even authors' social network composition. The imbalance is also increasing over time as a result of stubbornly consistent citation behavior in the face of a diversifying field.

A reader may reply that they do not even know the gender of the authors they cite. This is very possible! However, if such a reader has taken classes with imbalanced syllabi, or attends conferences with imbalanced speaker lists, or seeks out articles in journals with imbalances in publication, they are likely to perpetuate these imbalances in their citation practices. Another reader may object that there are remaining paper characteristics that could explain the imbalances. We stress that authors' focus on gendered paper characteristics may partially explain imbalanced citation practices, but it does not render that focus an ethical choice. In the following sections, we dive deeper into these issues. First, we lay out the ethical considerations and frameworks for citation behavior. Second, we discuss the ways in which scholars in a variety of scientific roles can best address the problem of citation imbalances. Finally, we describe the important research frontiers in this space and close with a call to action for members of our community to get involved personally and professionally.

Ethical Considerations and Frameworks

Citation behavior is the product of institutional structures and individual habits. Imbalances in citation behavior, therefore, are produced by both institutional biases and individual biases. By bias, we mean discriminatory (or, conversely, preferential) values, practices, or mechanisms, typically resulting in material, psychological, or physical harms. In the case of gender imbalances in historically man-dominated fields, institutional biases typically favor the status quo and thereby accrue more citations to a group of people with already disproportionately high citation counts. While sometimes blatant, institutional biases are often quite subtle. If a field already lacks gender parity and if, furthermore, a field's citation practices are already imbalanced with respect to the field's existing gender diversity, it follows that if we replicate field-typical citation patterns and algorithmic search results for highly ranking papers, our citation practices will naturally remain imbalanced. One might protest that we have always written papers without evaluating gender balance in our reference lists, so why start now? Or this field has always been taught this way, with these texts, and these figures, so why change now? But these conservative movements to maintain the status quo may, in fact, exacerbate existing inequalities. These are just a few structural biases that support gender imbalance in citation practices.

But there are also individual biases in play-biases of which we may be fully aware or relatively unaware. Some scientists consciously believe, and expressly state (and reiterate), that men make for better scientists. This is an explicit bias. Many, if not most, scientists, however, may implicitly favor men in their evaluation of scientific rigor or innovation, as expressed in their imbalanced conference invitations, grant evaluations, faculty hires, or student mentorship. Women are not alone in bearing the brunt of implicit bias. When bias supervenes on physical appearance, it may disadvantage women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, or even first-generation scholars that visibly lack financial, academic, and/or social capital. However, bias need not supervene on physical appearance. Much ink has been spilled to establish and quantify the widespread implicit bias relative to names, especially along the lines of gender and race. Our own analysis of citation patterns by gendered name tracks this thread. Assuming or insisting that one has no implicit biases is not only scientifically untenable, but also keeps one from investigating how one might conduct oneself as a scientist in ever more equitable ways. Noting that gender imbalance exists in reference lists, one might humbly turn to evaluate one's own citation patterns and correct course if necessary. This response is indicative of a growth mindset.

There are two ethical models that might guide the development of an ethics of citation practice. The first, distributive model proposes that citations ought to be distributed equally, accurately reflecting the current diversity of the field. This model would require that neuroscience (and any other field interested in ethical citation practices) keep a regularly updated record of the gender distribution of its practitioners and then calculate the citation balance to reflect that distribution. Proponents would need to determine whether this record is to reflect faculty alone or also postdocs, graduate students, and undergraduate researchers. Regardless of that determination, the distributive model would be an improvement in the present situation, which is increasingly under-citing women's contributions over time. It would not, however, aid in the project of increasing the future gender diversity of the field, nor would it redress past harms and perceptions of women and other underrepresented minority (URM) scholars as marginal to the field. The second, diversity model moves beyond the distributive model's attachment to economic parity and instead pursues epistemic justice. Without harming present science, it aims, through affirmative action and reparative justice, to correct for eons of scientific history and usher in a different future. Whether one chooses an ethics of equality and precision or one of equity and generosity, an ethics of citation practice ought to be a vital part of our work as scientists.

Recommendations

In this section, we provide specific recommendations to scientists in their various roles within the academy ( Figure 1, middle). We first provide recommendations for those scientists who create new scientific content and drive its dissemination (e.g., the person(s) who is closest to the scientific process and who drafts or edits the subsequent manuscript). We then provide recommendations for those scientists who arbitrate whether that scientific content is publicized, either as a preprint (e.g., a principal investigator) or as a published article (e.g., journal editors and reviewers). Finally, we provide recommendations for those scientists who reflect the field to others (e.g., mentors, instructors, and review authors). We hope that each reader sees themselves in one or more of these roles in their current and future scientific careers. While we do not explicitly consider the role of institutional bodies in this work, we note that universities and grant funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation could require training in the ethics of citation practices as part of the responsible conduct of research (RCR).

Creators

Here, we consider the scientists who are the producers, generators, authors, designers, and originators of manuscripts, whether they be undergraduate students, research assistants, graduate students, postdocs, research staff, or principal investigators. These individual investigators have personal responsibility in both the state of actuality and the state of potentiality, and we will describe each in turn. First, in the state of actuality, you actually have a manuscript drafted and you are nearly ready to submit. You have meticulously gone through every word, every turn of phrase, every sentence, every color combination in every figure, every argument in the introduction, every detail in the methods, every statistic in the results, every claim in the discussion, every line of code in your Github repository constructed in support of open science practices. You turn your attention last to your references, usually to ensure that they are formatted correctly. And now you remember to also (1) ask yourself whether your reference lists are gender balanced. How do you know? You have at least two options. First, use a common internet search engine such as Google to look up the authors on the papers you have cited and peruse their webpages, where you will learn more about their science in addition to learning their pronouns. Second, use open-source software to perform an automated probabilistic gender assignment based on the scientist's first name; the software will take in your reference list and offer back to you the predicted gender makeup of your cited first and last authors (

Zhou et al., 2020

Zhou D.

Cornblath E.J.

Stiso J.

Teich E.G.

Dworkin J.D.

Blevins A.S.

Bassett D.S.

Gender diversity statement and code notebook v1.0.

; Figure 1, right).

If your reference list is not balanced, what do you do? You (2) educate yourself on the work of minority scientists that is relevant to your study. Your efforts are made easy by Women in Neuroscience ( http://winrepo.org) and Anne's List ( http://anneslist.net), two databases collating the names of women in neuroscience across many subdisciplines. You also (3) gather information about the current gender distribution of authors in your field. Your efforts are made easier by BiasWatchNeuro ( http://biaswatchneuro.com) and an increasing number of discipline-specific studies of citation practices (

,

,

,

Dworkin et al., 2020

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

,

,

Thiem et al., 2018

Thiem Y.

Sealey K.F.

Ferrer A.E.

Trott A.M.

Kennison R.

Just ideas? The status and future of publication ethics in philosophy: A white paper.

Supported by the The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2018

). Then, you (4) determine whether you aim to reflect that current distribution or to proactively cite more work by minority scientists as an act of reparative justice and affirmative action in citational practices.

Now that your reference list is balanced, you (5) append a citation diversity statement to your paper to (i) hold yourself accountable, (ii) increase global awareness of citation imbalance, and (iii) point future readers to relevant tools for mitigating disparity. Perhaps placed after the acknowledgments section, it might read something like this:

" Citation Diversity Statement. Recent work in neuroscience and other fields has identified a bias in citation practices such that papers from women and other minorities are under-cited relative to the number of such papers in the field (

,

,

,

Dworkin et al., 2020

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

,

,

Thiem et al., 2018

Thiem Y.

Sealey K.F.

Ferrer A.E.

Trott A.M.

Kennison R.

Just ideas? The status and future of publication ethics in philosophy: A white paper.

Supported by the The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2018

). Here, we sought to proactively consider choosing references that reflect the diversity of the field in thought, gender, race, geography, seniority, and other factors. We used automatic classification of gender based on the first names of the first and last authors (

Dworkin et al., 2020

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

,

Zhou et al., 2020

Zhou D.

Cornblath E.J.

Stiso J.

Teich E.G.

Dworkin J.D.

Blevins A.S.

Bassett D.S.

Gender diversity statement and code notebook v1.0.

), with possible combinations including man/man, man/woman, woman/man, and woman/woman. Code for this classification is open source and available online (

Zhou et al., 2020

Zhou D.

Cornblath E.J.

Stiso J.

Teich E.G.

Dworkin J.D.

Blevins A.S.

Bassett D.S.

Gender diversity statement and code notebook v1.0.

). We regret that our current methodology is limited to consideration of gender as a binary variable. Excluding self-citations to the first and last authors of our current paper, the references contain 12.5% man/man, 25% man/woman, 25% woman/man, 37.5% woman/woman, and 0% unknown categorization. We look forward to future work that could help us to better understand how to support equitable practices in science."

(Note: the percentages reported here reflect the reference list of this NeuroView.) ...And you submit!

Now, perhaps you were not in a state of actuality but instead in a state of potentiality: you are embarking on a new research project that could potentially become a paper. How do you choose your topic of study? If, as has been suggested by prior work, we tend to choose new research directions from highly cited papers, and papers written by men are cited more than papers written by women (

Dworkin et al., 2020

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

), then we tend to answer questions posed by men, and the trajectory of scientific discovery and the crystallization of collective knowledge is biased away from the ideas produced by minority thinkers. In your previous paper, you may have come to the uncomfortable (or downright awkward) realization that you cited the work of women and other minorities in out-of-the-way places. But this time, you (6) proactively consider fleshing out ideas from women and other minorities early in the problem formulation stage, so that in fact women's work is central to your questions.

Arbiters

Here, we consider the scientists who are mediators, moderators, and adjudicators of the scientific publishing process, whether they be lab heads, journal editors, or reviewers. In a place of leadership as the gatekeeper standing between a manuscript and the public view, you (1) lead a team-wide discussion of literature on citation diversity; as a primary investigator (PI), that team is your group, and as a journal editor, that team is your editorial staff. Next, you (2) solicit a shared goal to reflect the current distribution of author gender or implement affirmative action in citational practices as a lab or journal policy. Next, you (3) do not open the gate until the paper has a reference list that the lab or journal would be proud of. Further, you (4) raise awareness by requiring a citation diversity statement. Journal editors could incorporate this requirement alongside their other checklists covering statistics, editorial policies, data sharing, and open science policies. You (5) spend time and resources assessing and reporting the proportion of papers in your field (as a lab head) or in your journal (as an editor) that are written by men (as first and/or last authors) and women (as first and/or last authors). At a journal, this effort serves both to inform potential authors of expected proportions and to hold the journal accountable to support the work of minority scientists. You (6) explicitly support the work of minority scientists by inviting them to co-author reviews (as a lab head) or author invited papers and commentaries (as a journal editor). You also (7) solicit URM reviewers of your preprint (as a lab head) or the manuscript submitted to your journal (as an editor) who may be better suited to evaluate the potential gaps in submissions' references. In fact, journal editors could ask reviewers to comment on the diversity of the reference list in their review and to suggest relevant articles from minority scientists that the authors could consider citing in their revised manuscript. Even without a journal editor requiring this step, conscientious reviewers could take it upon themselves to offer such evaluations and recommendations as a matter of principle in their reviews of unpublished manuscripts.

Reflectors

Here, we consider the scientists who mirror, reflect, and canvas the scientific field for others, such as mentors, instructors, and review authors, of any age and any stature. This group of scientists could (1) commit to offering a balanced view of the field as it stands and an increasingly equitable view of the field as it grows. Epistemic injustice (

Fricker, 2007

Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing.

Oxford University Press, 2007

) in the field is perpetuated when URM students, graduate students, postdocs, and junior faculty are made to believe that important work by URM scientists does not exist in a field (when it does), has not been influential in a field (when it has), or is valued as it should be (when it is not). While everyone in the field suffers from this injustice, the stereotype threat it promulgates serves to reduce young URM scholars' commitment to and resilience in the field. Efforts to diversify STEM fields necessitate making established URM scholars and their work more visible, accessible, and engaging, so as to facilitate a sense of belonging and worth among young URM scientists. Mentors could (2) facilitate summer research programs (e.g., the Big Ten's SROP initiative) and collaborative research between young and established URM scholars. Instructors could (3) check syllabi for underrepresentation and introduce students to relevant work by URM scientists in their areas of interest. Review authors could (4) expand their own and others' sense of the field by consciously including and, in some cases, highlighting work by URM scholars. For fields marked by existing, sustained, or even intensifying inequalities, change occurs by reflecting the field one wants to create.

Future Directions

Several important directions exist for future research ( Figure 1, right). One direction is to build upon prior findings with new empirical studies of current citational practices in science. First, extend prior work in a way that accommodates gender self-identifications of authors and that also accommodates intersex, transgender, and/or non-binary identities. Second, extend prior work by assessing the existence of imbalance along dimensions of race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, disability, citizenship, socioeconomic status, and university prestige. Third, extend prior work by assessing whether the extent and drivers of imbalance differ across subdisciplines of neuroscience or across high-, middle-, or low-impact factor journals. Collectively, such efforts would serve to address the limitations of previous studies and fundamentally broaden our understanding.

A second direction for future efforts would be to assess the efficacy of various interventions that are implemented as a result of this work. The first sort of study would assess whether an intervention works directly to alter the outcome of interest. Are the reference lists of papers that include a citation diversity statement more gender balanced? The second sort of study would assess whether an intervention targeting one outcome has subsequent effects on other outcomes. Are the reference lists of papers that cite a paper with a citation diversity statement also more likely to have balanced citations? Do papers that report an attempt to balance author gender also display greater balance in author race or ethnicity? If a journal editor provides a nudge (or requirement) to authors to balance their reference lists, do the same authors tend to balance their reference lists in future papers submitted to other journals? The third sort of study would assess whether early training in the ethics of diversity can drive an equitable future. Are students who take a class with a gender-balanced syllabus more likely to write papers with gender-balanced references? Do students working with a PI that requires balanced reference lists also tend to go on to lead labs that produce papers with balanced reference lists and that are filled with a diverse set of mentees?

Vision

When faced with what we can do, we might each ask ourselves, "What will I do?". For some, a utilitarian ethics might be enough: we ought to do our part to address injustices in science because such actions are useful and are likely to benefit a majority. For others, a deontological ethics may prove more effective: we have a duty and responsibility to our current and future colleagues to address injustices in science. For still others, a virtue ethics is most compelling: we aspire to be humble, equitable, and generous scientists in our work as much as in our reference lists. Whatever the impetus, we wish for our friends in the academy to be fairly treated, and we wish for our students of all genders to have the opportunity to enter an academy that treats all persons equally. In our scientific culture without culturalism (

Chelma and Keller, 2017

Cultures without culturalism: The making of scientific knowledge.

Duke University Press, 2017

), outrage can be healthy. Let us be outraged by the discrimination faced by gender-minority scientists (cisgender women certainly, but also non-binary and transgender people): our friends, partners, siblings, daughters, nieces, mentees, all with great hopes of a bright future. They deserve that future, and our actions today either bring that future closer or push it farther away.

References

Caplar N.

Tacchella S.

Birrer S.

Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts.

: 0141

Chakravartty P.

Kuo R.

Grubbs V.

McIlwain C.

: 254-266

3. Cultures without culturalism: The making of scientific knowledge.

Duke University Press, 2017

Dion M.L.

Sumner J.L.

Mitchell S.M.

Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields.

: 312-327

Dworkin J.D.

Linn K.A.

Teich E.G.

Zurn P.

Shinohara R.T.

Bassett D.S.

The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y

6. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing.

Oxford University Press, 2007

Maliniak D.

Powers R.

Walter B.F.

The gender citation gap in international relations.

: 889-922

Schrouff J.

Pischedda D.

Genon S.

Fryns G.

Pinho A.L.

Vassena E.

Liuzzi A.G.

Ferreira F.S.

Gender bias in (neuro)science: Facts, consequences, and solutions.

: 3094-3100

Thiem Y.

Sealey K.F.

Ferrer A.E.

Trott A.M.

Kennison R.

Just ideas? The status and future of publication ethics in philosophy: A white paper.

Supported by the The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2018

Zhou D.

Cornblath E.J.

Stiso J.

Teich E.G.

Dworkin J.D.

Blevins A.S.

Bassett D.S.

Gender diversity statement and code notebook v1.0.

Zenodo, 2020

Article Info

Identification

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.05.011

Copyright

User License
Elsevier user license |

How you can reuse

Permitted

For non-commercial purposes:

Read, print & download

Text & data mine

Translate the article

Not Permitted

Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works

Redistribute or republish the final article

Sell or re-use for commercial purposes

Elsevier's open access license policy

ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirect

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many mentors, colleagues, and mentees who have cultivated our own awareness of disparity over the years and our commitment to its mitigation. We also thank Blevmore Labs for their work in scientific illustration. D.S.B. acknowledges financial support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation , the ISI Foundation , and an NSF CARRER Award PHY-1554488 . P.Z. and D.S.B. acknowledge additional support from the Center for Curiosity .

Declaration of Interests

D.S.B. currently serves on the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.

Keywords

Related Articles

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Cell Press commenting guidelines

To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

We will review submitted comments within 2 business days.

This forum is intended for constructive dialog. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.

We recommend that commenters identify themselves with full names and affiliations.

Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.

Comments will not be peer-reviewed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(In)citing Action to Realize an Equitable Future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reference lists of neuroscience articles show marked gender imbalances. To mitigate this disparity and realize an equitable future, Dworkin et al. discuss relevant ethical considerations and offer practical recommendations to trainees, senior scientists, laboratory heads, editors, reviewers, mentors, and instructors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: The academic world has become increasingly diverse over the past few decades. However, many of us have unconscious biases against certain groups of people, and common practices in evaluating merit have flaws that can perpetuate these biases. We, a group of eLife Community Ambassadors within the Intersectionality Initiative of the 2019-2020 program, have identified five current practices that are fundamental to academic science that may be hindering inclusivity in science. These practices include hiring, mentoring, writing reference letters, and reviewing grants and manuscripts. To try and level the playing field and increase inclusivity in science, we have compiled a guideline for each of these practices that are intended to help inform scientists, mentors, funders, and journals on ways to mitigate biases. The overall goal of these guidelines is to make science more inclusive and to limit bias in these core features of academic science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Guidelines Toward Inclusive Practices in Academics by eLife Community Ambassadors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The academic world has become increasingly diverse over the past few decades. However, many of us have unconscious biases against certain groups of people, and common practices in evaluating merit have flaws that can perpetuate these biases.

# data[].attributes.headline
What role does unconscious bias play in the workplace? How do we address it, what communication and awareness need to exist to contrast behavioural differences in gender-based working relationships?

# data[].attributes.subject
What role does unconscious bias play in the workplace? How do we address it, what communication and awareness need to exist to contrast behavioural differences in gender-based working relationships?

# data[].attributes.headline
What do you feel needs to change (if anything) on an institutional level to help you progess and work to your aims and talents within academia?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do you feel needs to change (if anything) on an institutional level to help you progess and work to your aims and talents within academia?

# data[].attributes.headline
What resources do you feel you have needed in the past/ will need to enable your progression throughout your career?

# data[].attributes.subject
What resources do you feel you have needed in the past/ will need to enable your progression throughout your career?

# data[].attributes.headline
What is most important to you being a woman in academia? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What is most important to you being a woman in academia? 

# data[].attributes.headline
In your experience, how can women/-minority groups advocate for sustainable systematic change within the academic system without being labeled as "troublemakers"?

# data[].attributes.subject
In your experience, how can women/-minority groups advocate for sustainable systematic change within the academic system without being labeled as "troublemakers"?

# data[].attributes.headline
What communication and awareness need to exist to contrast behavioral differences in gender-based working relationships?

# data[].attributes.subject
What communication and awareness need to exist to contrast behavioral differences in gender-based working relationships?

# data[].attributes.headline
What changes would you like to see in academia to allow women to thrive and progress in their career progression?

# data[].attributes.subject
What changes would you like to see in academia to allow women to thrive and progress in their career progression?