4.5 Article

Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top-publishing ecologists

Journal

CONSERVATION LETTERS
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12797

Keywords

authorship; diversity; gender; global; inclusion; leadership; national bias; peer‐ reviewed journals; publication metrics; scientific society

Funding

  1. University of Vienna

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that only 11% of the top-publishing authors in leading ecology, evolution, and conservation journals between 1945 and 2019 were women, and authors from countries in the Global South were underrepresented. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Canada accounted for over 75% of top-publishing authors. The number of women and authors from the Global South is slowly increasing over time.
The global scientific community has become increasingly diverse over recent decades, but is this ongoing development also reflected among top-publishing authors and potential scientific leaders? We surveyed 13 leading journals in ecology, evolution, and conservation to investigate the diversity of the 100 top-publishing authors in each journal between 1945 and 2019. Out of 1051 individual top-publishing authors, only 11% are women. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Canada account for more than 75% of top-publishing authors, while countries of the Global South (as well as Russia, Japan, and South Korea) were strikingly underrepresented. The number of top-publishing authors who are women and/or are from the Global South is increasing only slowly over time. We outline transformative actions that scientific communities can take to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion at author, leadership, and society level. The resulting promotion of scientific innovation and productivity is essential for the development of global solutions in conservation science.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available