Fewer invited talks by women in evolutionary biology symposia

Lower visibility of female scientists, compared to male scientists, is a potential reason for the under‐representation of women among senior academic ranks. Visibility in the scientific community stems partly from presenting research as an invited speaker at organized meetings. We analysed the sex ratio of presenters at the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) Congress 2011, where all abstract submissions were accepted for presentation. Women were under‐represented among invited speakers at symposia (15% women) compared to all presenters (46%), regular oral presenters (41%) and plenary speakers (25%). At the ESEB congresses in 2001–2011, 9–23% of invited speakers were women. This under‐representation of women is partly attributable to a larger proportion of women, than men, declining invitations: in 2011, 50% of women declined an invitation to speak compared to 26% of men. We expect invited speakers to be scientists from top ranked institutions or authors of recent papers in high‐impact journals. Considering all invited speakers (including declined invitations), 23% were women. This was lower than the baseline sex ratios of early‐mid career stage scientists, but was similar to senior scientists and authors that have published in high‐impact journals. High‐quality science by women therefore has low exposure at international meetings, which will constrain Evolutionary Biology from reaching its full potential. We wish to highlight the wider implications of turning down invitations to speak, and encourage conference organizers to implement steps to increase acceptance rates of invited talks.     

Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences

1. Increasingly viewed to have societal impact and value, science is affected by complex changes such as globalisation and the increasing dominance of commercial interest. As a result, technical advancements, financial concerns, institutional prestige and journal proliferation have created challenges for ecological and other scientific journals and affected the perception of both researchers and the public about the science that they publish. 2. Journals are now used for more than dissemination of scientific research. Institutions use journal rankings for a variety of purposes and often require a pre‐established number of articles in hiring and budgetary decisions. Consequently, journal impact factors have achieved greater importance, and the splitting of articles into smaller parcels of information (‘salami‐slicing’) to increase numbers of publications has become more frequent. 3. Journals may prescribe upper limits to article length, even though the average length of articles for several ecological journals examined has increased over time. There are clear signs, however, that journals without length limits for articles will become rarer. In contrast to ecological journals, taxonomic journals are not following this trend. 4. Two case histories demonstrate how splitting longer ecological articles into a series of shorter ones results in both redundancy of information and actually increases the journal space used overall. Furthermore, with current rejection rates of ecological journals (often ～80%), many thin salami‐sliced articles jam the peer‐review system much longer (through resubmission after rejection) than unsliced articles previously did (e.g. when rejection rates were ～50%). In our experience, the increased pressure to publish many articles in ‘high‐impact’ journals also may decrease the attractiveness of a future scientific career in ecology to young people. 5. ‘Gatekeeping’ of journal quality has shifted from editors to reviewers, and several recent trends are apparent including: bias about appropriate statistical methods; reviewers being more rigid overall; non‐native English writers being criticised for poor communications skills; and favourable reviews being signed more often than unfavourable ones. In terms of production, outsourcing of copy editing has increased the final error rate of published material. 6. We supplemented our perceptions with those of older colleagues (～100 experienced ecologists) that responded to an informal survey on this topic (response rate: 81%). In the opinion of almost 90% of our respondents, the overall review process has changed and for 20% among them the professional quality of reviews has declined. 7. We, and many older colleagues, are convinced there have been some negative changes in the scientific publication process. If younger colleagues share this concern, we can collectively counter this deteriorating situation, because we are the key to the publishing and evaluation process.     

Biosecurity and the review and publication of dual-use research of concern

Dual-use research of concern (DURC) is scientific research with significant potential for generating information that could be used to harm national security, the public health, or the environment. Editors responsible for journal policies and publication decisions play a vital role in ensuring that effective safeguards exist to cope with the risks of publishing scientific research with dual-use implications. We conducted an online survey of 127 chief editors of life science journals in 27 countries to examine their attitudes toward and experience with the review and publication of dual-use research of concern. Very few editors (11) had experience with biosecurity review, and no editor in our study reported having ever refused a submission on biosecurity grounds. Most respondents (74.8%) agreed that editors have a responsibility to consider biosecurity risks during the review process, but little consensus existed among editors on how to handle specific issues in the review and publication of research with potential dual-use implications. More work is needed to establish consensus on standards for the review and publication of dual-use research of concern in life science journals.     

Terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature: Asymmetry in citation breadth in ecological publications and implications for generality and progress in ecology

The search for generality in ecology should include assessing the influence of studies done in one system on those done in other systems. Assuming generality is reflected in citation patterns, we analyzed frequencies of terrestrial, marine, and freshwater citations in papers categorized as terrestrial, marine and freshwater in high-impact “general” ecological journals. Citation frequencies were strikingly asymmetric. Aquatic researchers cited terrestrial papers ~ 10 times more often than the reverse, implying uneven cross-fertilization of information between aquatic and terrestrial ecologists. Comparisons between citation frequencies in the early 1980s and the early 2000s for two of the seven journals yielded similar results. Summing across all journals, 60% of all research papers (n = 5824) published in these journals in 2002–2006 were terrestrial vs. 9% freshwater and 8% marine. Since total numbers of terrestrial and aquatic ecologists are more similar than these proportions suggest, the representation of publications by habitat in “general” ecological journals appears disproportional and unrepresentative of the ecological science community at large. Such asymmetries are a concern because (1) aquatic and terrestrial systems can be tightly integrated, (2) pressure for across-system understanding to meet the challenge of climate change is increasing, (3) citation asymmetry implies barriers to among-system flow of understanding, thus (4) impeding scientific and societal progress. Changing this imbalance likely depends on a bottom-up approach originating from the ecological community, through pressure on societies, journals, editors and reviewers.     

Analysis of pre-residency research productivity,dual degree status,and gender distribution of underrepresented minorities among a current United States radiation oncology junior resident class

BackgroundAmong the most competitive medical subspecialties, representation of underrepresented minorities (African–American race and/or Hispanic ethnicity) among resident trainees has historically been low compared to their United States Census general population representation. Research productivity and dual degree status may impact residency applicant competitiveness. To date, such an analysis has yet to be performed in Radiation Oncology.MethodsA list of radiation oncology residents from the graduating class of 2022 was obtained through internet searches. Demographics included were gender and dual degree status. Research productivity was calculated using the number of pre-residency peer-reviewed publications (PRP). Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsOf the 179 residents evaluated from the 2022 class, eleven (6.1%) were underrepresented minorities. Compared to the remainder of the class, underrepresented minorities had a lower proportion of men (63.6% versus 69.3%), a higher proportion of dual degrees (45.5% versus 28.6%), and a lower proportion of MD-PhD degrees (9.1% versus 17.2%). Underrepresented minorities had a higher proportion of residents with at least two PRP (72.7% versus 57.1%) and a lower proportion of residents with no PRP (18.2% versus 24.4%). None of these differences reached statistical significance (p > 0.05).ConclusionUnderrepresented minorities were comparable to the remainder of their Radiation Oncology resident class regarding gender distribution, dual degrees status, and likelihood of having at least two peer-reviewed publications cited in PubMed during the calendar year of residency application. Further studies will be needed to determine how these findings translate into future scholarly activity and post-graduate career choice.     

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.     

Formalizing the definition of meta‐analysis in Molecular Ecology

Meta‐analysis, the statistical synthesis of pertinent literature to develop evidence‐based conclusions, is relatively new to the field of molecular ecology, with the first meta‐analysis published in the journal Molecular Ecology in 2003 (Slate & Phua 2003). The goal of this article is to formalize the definition of meta‐analysis for the authors, editors, reviewers and readers of Molecular Ecology by completing a review of the meta‐analyses previously published in this journal. We also provide a brief overview of the many components required for meta‐analysis with a more specific discussion of the issues related to the field of molecular ecology, including the use and statistical considerations of Wright's F_ST and its related analogues as effect sizes in meta‐analysis. We performed a literature review to identify articles published as ‘meta‐analyses’ in Molecular Ecology, which were then evaluated by at least two reviewers. We specifically targeted Molecular Ecology publications because as a flagship journal in this field, meta‐analyses published in Molecular Ecology have the potential to set the standard for meta‐analyses in other journals. We found that while many of these reviewed articles were strong meta‐analyses, others failed to follow standard meta‐analytical techniques. One of these unsatisfactory meta‐analyses was in fact a secondary analysis. Other studies attempted meta‐analyses but lacked the fundamental statistics that are considered necessary for an effective and powerful meta‐analysis. By drawing attention to the inconsistency of studies labelled as meta‐analyses, we emphasize the importance of understanding the components of traditional meta‐analyses to fully embrace the strengths of quantitative data synthesis in the field of molecular ecology.     

Impact factor statistics and publication practice: What can we learn?

Peer review procedures and citation statistics are important yet often neglected components of the scientific publication process. Here I discuss fundamental consequences of such quality measures for the scientific community and propose three remedial actions: (1) use of a ‘‘Combined Impact Estimate’’ as a measure of citation statistics, (2) adoption of an open reviewing policy and (3) acceleration of the publication process in order to raise the reputation of the entire discipline (in our case: behavioural science). Authors, reviewers and editors are invited to contribute to the improvement of publication practice.     

The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship

Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.     

Informed Choice in the German Mammography Screening Program by Education and Migrant Status: Survey among First-Time Invitees

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women and mammography screening programs are seen as a key strategy to reduce breast cancer mortality. In Germany, women are invited to the population-based mammography screening program between ages 50 to 69. It is still discussed whether the benefits of mammography screening outweigh its harms. Therefore, the concept of informed choice comprising knowledge, attitude and intention has gained importance. The objective of this observational study was to assess the proportion of informed choices among women invited to the German mammography screening program for the first time. A representative sample of 17,349 women aged 50 years from a sub-region of North Rhine Westphalia was invited to participate in a postal survey. Turkish immigrant women were oversampled. The effects of education level and migration status on informed choice and its components were assessed. 5,847 (33.7%) women responded to the postal questionnaire of which 4,113 were used for analyses. 31.5% of the women had sufficient knowledge. The proportion of sufficient knowledge was lower among immigrants and among women with low education levels. The proportion of women making informed choices was low (27.1%), with similar associations with education level and migration status. Women of low (OR 2.75; 95% CI 2.18–3.46) and medium education level (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.27–1.75) were more likely to make an uninformed choice than women of high education level. Turkish immigrant women had the greatest odds for making an uninformed choice (OR 5.30, 95% CI 1.92–14.66) compared to non-immigrant women. Other immigrant women only had slightly greater odds for making an uninformed choice than non-immigrant women. As immigrant populations and women with low education level have been shown to have poor knowledge, they need special attention in measures to increase knowledge and thus informed choices.     

Perspectives from early career researchers on the publication process in ecology – a response to Statzner & Resh (2010)

1. Two senior ecologists summarised their experience of the scientific publication process ( Statzner & Resh, Freshwater Biology, 2010 ; 55 , 2639) to generate discussion, particularly among early career researchers (ECRs). As a group of eight ECRs, we comment on the six trends they described. 2. We generally agree with most of the trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010) , but also highlight a number of divergent perspectives and provide recommendations for change. Trends of particular concern are the use of inappropriate metrics to evaluate research quality (e.g. impact factor) and the salami slicing of papers to increase paper count. We advocate a transparent and comprehensive system for evaluating the research. 3. We stress the importance of impartiality and independence in the peer review process. We therefore suggest implementation of double‐blind review and quality control measures for reviewers and possibly editors. Besides such structural changes, editors should be confident to overrule biased reviewer recommendations, while reviewers should provide helpful reviews but be explicit if a submission does not meet quality standards. Authors should always conduct a thorough literature search and acknowledge historical scientific ideas and methods. Additionally, authors should report low‐quality copy editing and reviews to the editors. 4. Both early and late career researchers should jointly implement these recommendations to reverse the negative trends identified by Statzner & Resh (2010) . However, more senior scientists will always have to take the lead with respect to structural changes in the publication system given that they occupy the majority of decision‐making positions.     

论文引用率影响因素——中外生态学期刊比较

本文选择8种有代表性中外生态学期刊,对其一定发表周期内的论文引用率进行分析,探讨生态学论文引用率的影响因素及中外生态学期刊的差异.结果表明：4种英文期刊的年均被引次数均远大于4种中文期刊;英文期刊1位作者的论文数量百分比相对较高;所有期刊的合著论文比例均较高,体现了合作性在现代生态学研究中的重要性;论文作者数量与引用率之间有一定的正相关关系,但不显著;英文期刊论文的长度显著高于中文论文;随着论文长度的增加,年均被引次数增多.对中外期刊论文的引用率变化动态进行分析表明,英文期刊中总被引次数高的论文其增长速率也较快,表明其持续影响力强于中文生态学论文.我们希望这些结果会对生态学者以及相关期刊工作者有所裨益.