Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals

Myrna L Yeverino-Gutiérrez; Ma del Rosario González-González; Ruth Corral-Symes; Omar González-Santiago

doi:10.12688/f1000research.11661.1

Home Browse Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Note

Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Myrna L Yeverino-Gutiérrez¹, Ma del Rosario González-González¹, Ruth Corral-Symes¹, Omar González-Santiago ¹

PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Chemical Science, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Leon (UANL), Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Myrna L Yeverino-Gutiérrez
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ma del Rosario González-González
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ruth Corral-Symes
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Omar González-Santiago
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

Abstract

This research note describes an analysis regarding the role of women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals. The list of journals analyzed was obtained from the database of “Web of Science”, published in 2015. This database does not include information on the name or gender of the editors-in-chief of journals, so a web search was performed. The results show that gender inequality is present in this important field of science. Causes of this bias merit more and profound research. The bias observed may not apply to journals of others areas of science.

Keywords

gender, science, editor, science communication,

Corresponding author: Omar González-Santiago

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2017 Yeverino-Gutiérrez ML 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 work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Yeverino-Gutiérrez ML, González-González MdR, Corral-Symes R and González-Santiago O. Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11661.1) First published: 21 Jul 2017, 6:1167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11661.1) Latest published: 21 Jul 2017, 6:1167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11661.1)

Introduction

Gender bias has been observed in several aspects of science, mainly in the authorship of scientific papers, first author position, grants and employment^1,2. It is possible that this bias is present for other important positions in science, such as the editorial positions in scientific journals. With this in mind, we determined the percentage of women who are editors-in-chief of environmental science journals.

Methods

The list of journals was obtained from the 2015 Thomson Reuters Web of Science database, which groups journals by impact factor and area of scientific expertise. We chose journals grouped into environmental science. Since the name and gender of the editor-in-chief is not reported in this database, a web search was performed. The name of the editor-in-chief was obtained from the respective web page of the journal. In cases where it was not possible to identify the gender with the name only, a more extensive web search was performed. The criteria used to identify the gender was a headshot on the website of the respective institution, a Researchgate profile, or the journal that he or she directs. Differences between genders and amongst groups of journals were determined with a chi-square test. NCSS version 11 was used for statistical analysis.

Results and discussion

A total of 103 environmental science journals were analyzed. Of these, 22 journals had an impact factor (IF) < 1; 50 journals had an IF between 1-2; and 31 journals had IF > 2. For 4 journals, it was not possible to identify the gender of the editor-in-chief. The list of journals analyzed is available as a dataset. Overall, the percentage of women that were editors-in-chief was 21.6% (Table 1). This percentage was different according to the IF of the journals. In journals with low IF, the percentage of women as editors-in-chief was 33.3%, in journals with IF between 1-2, this percentage was 21.6%, and in journals with IF > 2, the percentage was 14.9%. The decreasing trend was statistically significant.

Table 1. Percentage of women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals.

Variable	Total (N=148)	Impact factor			Test for trend
Variable	Total (N=148)	<1 (N=27)	1-2 (N=74)	>2 (N=47)	Test for trend
Gender
Female	21.6	33.3	21.6	14.9	0.03
Male	78.4	66.7	78.4	85.1	0.03
P value	<0.01	0.21	<0.01	<0.01

Women are underrepresented as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals and suggests a gender bias. Several factors that could contribute to underrepresentation of women in science have been previously suggested by other authors and could explain this observation³. Childbearing, forming a family, gender expectations, lifestyle choices and career preferences are among these factors. Other factor could be the scientific area. The percentage of women as editors-in-chiefs probably is major in areas where their participation is more active, so this analysis should be made with other types of journals that specialize on other fields of science. Finally, more studies that corroborate and identify causes of this outcome are needed.

Dataset 1.List of journals included in the analysis.

Data availability

Dataset 1. List of journals included in the analysis. DOI, 10.5256/f1000research.11661.d169039⁴

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

F1000 recommended

References

1. Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al.: Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study. Acad Med. 2016; 91(8): 1068–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, et al.: Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504(7479): 211–213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Ceci SJ, Williams WM: Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(8): 3157–3162. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Yeverino-Gutierres ML, González-González MdR, Corral-Symes R, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Chemical Science, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Leon (UANL), Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Myrna L Yeverino-Gutiérrez
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ma del Rosario González-González
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ruth Corral-Symes
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Omar González-Santiago
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 21 Jul 2017, 6:1167

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11661.1

Copyright

© 2017 Yeverino-Gutiérrez ML 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 work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Yeverino-Gutiérrez ML, González-González MdR, Corral-Symes R and González-Santiago O. Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2017, 6:1167 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11661.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2017

Views

14

Reviewer Report 31 Aug 2017

Emilio Bruna, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12595.r24413

This study addresses an important topic - the gender balance at the highest levels of journal editorial leadership. There data collection and analyses are straightforward and technically sound. While there is value in documenting the gender ratio of editors-in-chief, however, ... Continue reading

This study addresses an important topic - the gender balance at the highest levels of journal editorial leadership. There data collection and analyses are straightforward and technically sound. While there is value in documenting the gender ratio of editors-in-chief, however, the study doesn't place these results in a greater context. This is both surprising and disappointing given the substantial research on the topic (and very little of which is cited). Why focus on environmental biology? How do these results compare with those from other fields? Why is the observed gender imbalance a problem and what can be done to remedy it? Without addressing these questions

I would encourage the authors to move beyond simply presenting the data to interpreting and contextualizing it. This will greatly increase the impact of their substantial effort.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: I am the co-author of an article on the same topic: doi:10.7717/peerj.542

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

14

Reviewer Report 29 Aug 2017

Karin Amrein, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12595.r25001

In a short research note, Yeverino-Gutierrez and colleagues report interesting data on the representation of women as editors in chief in environmental science journals.

A few major aspects should be clarified:

In the abstract,

In a short research note, Yeverino-Gutierrez and colleagues report interesting data on the representation of women as editors in chief in environmental science journals.

A few major aspects should be clarified:

In the abstract, the authors should state some specific results of their analysis (no. of journals, no. of editors, % female etc.)
The manuscript is indeed very short and would benefit from some greater detail for all sections.
The numbers mentioned in the text are discordant to the numbers in the table (e.g. 103 journals analyzed vs 148). Were data missing and if yes, why?
I think it would be better to use tertiles in the analysis of impact factor in order to have similar group size as opposed to an arbitrary cutoff for the impact factor.
Limitations should be added (only one time point, only one category, etc.)
Add the used test to the table legend.
A few minor typos/grammar errors are present

PS:

Were any efforts made to contact the journals and obtain more detailed data from them or have more information about the process of assignment for editor in chief?
Are the authors aware of data on how the percentage of women in scientists or people working in this field is?
To date, the category "Environmental Sciences" has well over 200 journals. Were indeed only 148 listed in 2015??

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Jul 2017

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 21 Jul 17	read	read

Karin Amrein, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
Emilio Bruna, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA; University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

31 Aug 2017 | for Version 1

Emilio Bruna, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

14 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

This study addresses an important topic - the gender balance at the highest levels of journal editorial leadership. There data collection and analyses are straightforward and technically sound. While there is value in documenting the gender ratio of editors-in-chief, however, the study doesn't place these results in a greater context. This is both surprising and disappointing given the substantial research on the topic (and very little of which is cited). Why focus on environmental biology? How do these results compare with those from other fields? Why is the observed gender imbalance a problem and what can be done to remedy it? Without addressing these questions

I would encourage the authors to move beyond simply presenting the data to interpreting and contextualizing it. This will greatly increase the impact of their substantial effort.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

I am the co-author of an article on the same topic: doi:10.7717/peerj.542

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

29 Aug 2017 | for Version 1

Karin Amrein, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

14 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

In a short research note, Yeverino-Gutierrez and colleagues report interesting data on the representation of women as editors in chief in environmental science journals.

A few major aspects should be clarified:

In the abstract, the authors should state some specific results of their analysis (no. of journals, no. of editors, % female etc.)
The manuscript is indeed very short and would benefit from some greater detail for all sections.
The numbers mentioned in the text are discordant to the numbers in the table (e.g. 103 journals analyzed vs 148). Were data missing and if yes, why?
I think it would be better to use tertiles in the analysis of impact factor in order to have similar group size as opposed to an arbitrary cutoff for the impact factor.
Limitations should be added (only one time point, only one category, etc.)
Add the used test to the table legend.
A few minor typos/grammar errors are present

PS:

Were any efforts made to contact the journals and obtain more detailed data from them or have more information about the process of assignment for editor in chief?
Are the authors aware of data on how the percentage of women in scientists or people working in this field is?
To date, the category "Environmental Sciences" has well over 200 journals. Were indeed only 148 listed in 2015??

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Freund KM, Raj A, Kaplan SE, et al.: Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey Cohort Study. Acad Med. 2016; 91(8): 1068–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, et al.: Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature. 2013; 504(7479): 211–213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Ceci SJ, Williams WM: Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(8): 3157–3162. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Yeverino-Gutierres ML, González-González MdR, Corral-Symes R, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals. F1000Research. 2017. Data Source

Women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results and discussion

Table 1. Percentage of women as editors-in-chief of environmental science journals.

Data availability

Competing interests

Grant information

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated