Self-identification of gender and race/ethnicity in hematology and oncology journal editorial boards: What is the state of diversity?

Abstract

11058 Background: Underrepresentation of women and minorities persists in many aspects of the scholarly publication process as demonstrated by our initial findings presented at ASCO21. Having a gender-balanced and diverse editorial team promotes collaborative work and decreases the publication bias against women. In our initial study, gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data. We aimed to add to our study by asking editors to self-report their gender and race to assess the diversity of editors at leading hematology and oncology journals by self-reporting. Methods: We identified 60 journals in oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology with the highest impact factors. Editors-In-Chief (EiC) and Second-In-Command (SiC) editors (such as deputy, senior and associated editors) were included in the analysis. A demographic survey assessing gender, race/ethnicity, age, and job characteristics was sent to 793 participants via email. Data were analyzed with R software. Results: A total of 66 out of 793 editorial board members responded to the survey. Gender breakdown of respondents was 36 (54.5%) men and 30 (45.8%) women. Most respondents were between the ages of 40 and 60 (69.7%). Thirty-eight (57.6%) of the editors had ≤5 years of editorial experience. Of the 66 respondents, 44 (66.7%) self-identified as non-Hispanic white, followed by 14 (21.2%) as Asian and 3 (4.5%) as Hispanic. Only 1/66 (1.5%) editors self-identified as Black or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 1/66 (1.5%) did not identify themselves with a racial group. Conclusions: Underrepresented groups in medicine (URM) and women occupied a minority of leadership roles on editorial boards in high-impact hematology and oncology journals. Notably, this study provides new insights into editorial board diversity by using self-reporting as a primary methodology. Limitations of the cross-sectional study is that URM and women are more likely to respond to surveys on diversity, equity, and inclusion potentially skewing the results. Diversity in editorial boards not only can enhance scientific discovery by encouraging submissions from researchers with diverse backgrounds but also promotes career advancement for women and URM.[Table: see text]