Abstract
Abstract
Biases and in-group preferences limit opportunities for persons of all identities to flourish in science. Decisions made by those in charge of leading professional meetings about which presentations to feature prominently and by academic journal staff about which articles to publish reinforce these biases. The paper by Nobles et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1710–1720) showed that women are less likely to be selected to be symposium presenters in the field’s pre-eminent scientific meeting than men. The scientific and moral arguments for promoting diversity of engagement by persons of all identities in the field are abundantly clear, calling for efforts to mitigate the effect of these in-group biases. I offer 3 suggestions for how we can achieve better diversity in our field: 1) increase our discussions of the importance of diversity and raise consciousness about the issue consistently; 2) ensure that only blinded, peer-reviewed presentations are advanced at professional meeting; and 3) publish only blinded, peer-reviewed papers in leading journals in the field. These steps—together with broader system-wide efforts to maximize diversity among trainees and faculty—can pave the way for any field to become welcoming to all, irrespective of any axes of identity.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference9 articles.
1. Dynamic models of segregation;Schelling;J Math Sociol,1971
2. The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism;Efferson;Science,2008
3. Redlining and the home owners’ loan corporation;Hillier;J Urban Hist,2003
4. A data-based approach to evaluating representation by gender and affiliation in key presentation formats at the annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research;Nobles;Am J Epidemiol,2021
5. The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration;AlShebli;Nat Commun,2018
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献