A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology.

Clicks: 375
ID: 29523
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #8 of 32 articles by views in plos biology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The scholars comprising journal editorial boards play a critical role in defining the trajectory of knowledge in their field. Nevertheless, studies of editorial board composition remain rare, especially those focusing on journals publishing research in the increasingly globalized fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Using metrics for quantifying the diversity of ecological communities, we quantified international representation on the 1985-2014 editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals. Over the course of 3 decades, there were 3,827 unique scientists based in 70 countries who served as editors. The size of the editorial community increased over time-the number of editors serving in 2014 was 4-fold greater than in 1985-as did the number of countries in which editors were based. Nevertheless, editors based outside the "Global North" (the group of economically developed countries with high per capita gross domestic product [GDP] that collectively concentrate most global wealth) were extremely rare. Furthermore, 67.18% of all editors were based in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Consequently, geographic diversity-already low in 1985-remained unchanged through 2014. We argue that this limited geographic diversity can detrimentally affect the creativity of scholarship published in journals, the progress and direction of research, the composition of the STEM workforce, and the development of science in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia (i.e., the "Global South").
Reference Key
espin2017aplos Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Espin, Johanna;Palmas, Sebastian;Carrasco-Rueda, Farah;Riemer, Kristina;Allen, Pablo E;Berkebile, Nathan;Hecht, Kirsten A;Kastner-Wilcox, Kay;Núñez-Regueiro, Mauricio M;Prince, Candice;Rios, Constanza;Ross, Erica;Sangha, Bhagatveer;Tyler, Tia;Ungvari-Martin, Judit;Villegas, Mariana;Cataldo, Tara T;Bruna, Emilio M;
Journal plos biology
Year 2017
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.2002760
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.