From its earliest beginnings, the university was not designed for women, and certainly not for
women of color. Women of color in the United States are disproportionately under …

There is substantial evidence that systemic biases influence the scholarly peer review
process. Many scholars have advocated for double‐blind peer review (also known as …

Peer review is central to the scientific process and scientists' career advancement, but bias
at various stages of the review process disadvantages some authors. Here we use peer …

Objective Gender-based bias during journal peer review can lead to publication biases and
perpetuate gender inequality in science. Double-blind peer review, in which the names of …

The global scientific community has become increasingly diverse over recent decades, but
is this ongoing development also reflected among top‐publishing authors and potential …

There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and
inclusion (EDI) on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have …

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 …

Despite considerable efforts to enhance participation of underrepresented demographics,
participation of scholars of color in STEM remains stagnant. In contrast to other academic …

Scholarly journals are often blamed for a gender gap in publication rates, but it is unclear
whether peer review and editorial processes contribute to it. This article examines gender …

Interdisciplinary research is paramount to addressing ocean sustainability challenges in the
21st century. However, women leaders have been underrepresented in interdisciplinary …