DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e142485

Authors: Shelly Melissa Pranić, Ana Heredia, Charikleia Tzanakou, Pavel Ovseiko, Kate Wilson, Diana Samuel, Christina Kassiteridi

Abstract: Background: Scholarly settings lack racial, ethnic, sex, gender, geographic, and linguistic diversity. Despite initiatives to promote more inclusive scholarly communities, the extent of implementation of policies related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) remains low.Objectives: The objective is to survey the perceptions and opinions of journal editors and other stakeholders with reference to policies related to EDI and relevant practices in their journals and organizations.Methods: We sent out, through email, a link to a survey with 16 Likert-scale items and 8 open-ended questions in English to assess the perceptions of EDI. Questions were generated based on discussions at meetings of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) EDI Committee in November and December 2023. The survey was available from 8 to 30 January 2024. Snowball sampling was used among members of EASE and those of related professional organizations recruited through social networks.Results: Of the total of 232 participants, 129/232 (56%) responded on behalf of journals and 103/232 (44%) on behalf of organizations. Most (72%) considered EDI to be important or very important for their journal or organization, and even more (76%) wanted examples of existing policies and guidelines for implementing EDI. Exactly 50% (27/54) reported that their organizations have no published EDI policies, and 59% (54/91) reported the absence of an EDI statement.Conclusion: Although the survey showed wide support for EDI within journals and organizations, efforts to develop EDI policies and statements have been limited, as reflected in the responses that welcomed guidance on EDI. This suggests a need for increased awareness and knowledge-sharing about EDI policies and practices, as well as concrete actions to create a more diverse scholarly community.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e139166

Authors: Anda-Cosmina Hângan, Andrei Ognean, Michal Orlický, Karlo Prižmić, Dorian Karuc, Hrvoje Baric

Abstract: Background: In 2016, the SAGER (sex and gender equity in research) guidelines were developed to standardize research reporting and to facilitate the generalizability of research findings for women and men, thereby impacting clinical practice.Objectives: To assess the extent to which the SAGER guidelines have been implemented in neurosurgical publications.Methods: Original research articles from leading neurosurgical journals indexed in Google Scholar under the category ‘Neurosurgery’ were examined and assessed for the extent to which the articles conformed to the SAGER guidelines. Data were extracted on subjects (sample size and relative proportions of sex or gender) and on adherence to the SAGER guidelines (one item for general principles and five items from recommendations for each section of the article) and summarized.Results: We included 98 articles from 10 leading neurosurgical journals. The average number of subjects for a journal was 4728, of which 2056 (43.5%) were women. Only nine (9.2%) of the 98 articles used the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ appropriately. The outcomes were disaggregated by sex in 16 (16.3%) articles; sex differences were acknowledged in the introduction in six (6.1%) articles; considered in the ‘Methods’ section in five (5.1%) articles; the differing numbers of women and men were justified in the methods in two (2%) articles; and the generalizability of the results to women or men was discussed in five (5.1%) articles. The journals showed no differences in the extent to which they adhered to the guidelines.Conclusions: Reporting sex and gender equity in neurosurgical journals is negligible for the most screened SAGER items as is the endorsement of the guidelines. The results likely reflect the lack of awareness of both the importance of disaggregating data by sex or gender and the existence of pertinent guidelines.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e86910

Authors: Heather Van Epps, Olaya Astudillo, Yaiza Del Pozo Martin, Joan Marsh

Abstract: Understanding sex and gender differences is fundamental to rigorous and inclusive research, whether studying disease pathophysiology, sociodemographic determinants of health, or the benefits and harms of medical or social interventions. The inclusion of gender-diverse study populations has improved, but the reporting of sex and gender variables in research is still incomplete. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, published in 2016, have been widely endorsed, but few scientific journals and organizations have incorporated them into formal editorial guidance and publication policies. To facilitate monitoring of and adherence to the SAGER guidelines in Lancet journals, we carried out an informal pilot study and developed a checklist to enable rapid editorial checks, promote uptake of the guidelines by other editors and journals, and raise awareness among peer reviewers and authors. By using this checklist as part of manuscript assessment and peer-review processes, journal editors can support best reporting practices when considering sex and gender as variables, improving the generalizability of the research they publish.

HTML

XML

PDF