As part of a ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’ (DEI) initiative, some of the major academic publishers and journals are asking authors, editors and peer reviewers to provide information on their personal characteristics, including race and ethnicity.
Elsevier (a publisher of more than 2,600 journals) states the following in the final stage of the manuscript submission process:
Diversity & Inclusion
Help us establish evidence-based action plans and measure progress on diversity & inclusion goals towards greater equity in publishing and research. This data will directly inform our efforts across editorial processes but is otherwise analysed and reported in aggregate. For more information, see our FAQs.
While these questions cannot be skipped, you may opt to answer I prefer not to disclose. Individual responses will not be visible or used when evaluating journal submissions.
And the below information is provided in FAQs:
Why is Elsevier asking these questions?
By inviting Editorial Manager users to self-report their gender identity, ethnic origins and race (diversity data), Elsevier facilitates an evidence-based approach to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in research. By analysing diversity data, Elsevier aims to increase diversity and inclusion in Elsevier’s journal editorial processes, remediate unfair bias and drive greater equity in publishing and research more broadly.
I’ve expressed some of my own concerns about this to Elsevier. I’m sharing the main text of my letter below. I hope other researchers and academics, especially those on editorial boards, will raise concerns too if you feel able to do so. Please feel free to share and use this letter as you wish.
Re: Inviting Editorial Manager users to self-report their gender identity, ethnic origins, and race (diversity data)
I am writing to express some of my concerns about the above DEI initiative. I became aware of this when I recently submitted a paper to one of your journals and was asked to provide information about my personal characteristics.
I am very concerned about being asked to provide this information, even though it is an invitation and is not mandatory.
It undermines my trust and confidence in the editorial process and in academic publishing because it raises the possibility that my personal characteristics could be considered during the editorial process, or that I could be subjected to some form of differential treatment by this journal or publisher on the basis of my personal characteristics.
It is my belief that the only factors that should inform the editorial process are the quality and presentation of the research and how well it aligns with the journal. Being able to assume that this generally will be my experience is what makes me feel confident about submitting my work to a journal.
Any form of preferential treatment based on my personal characteristics (e.g., a paper being more likely to be considered for peer review, an invitation to contribute to a special issue, or my work being promoted in some way) to help achieve DEI goals would undermine this trust and confidence, as does the mere possibility or suggestion of it.
Furthermore, any form of preferential treatment by the publisher or journal would be deeply offensive and unacceptable to me. My research deserves to undergo the exact same editorial process as that of my academic peers – without regard to my racial background or other personal characteristics. I had taken for granted that this would be the case in the past, but DEI initiatives like this one justifiably raise some doubts and concerns.
Are procedures in place to remove or minimise the possibility for any discrimination (including preferential treatment) based on personal characteristics such as race during the editorial process? And can you assure me that no algorithms or processes that are sensitive to information on personal characteristics are or will be used during the editorial process?
This article first appeared on Amber Muhinyi’s Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Presumably the proportionate response is to identify as whatever one feels like being at the time.
Why?
I think we know very well where this leads.
Not just them – my wife was asked for her ethnicity when she went to Specsavers this morning. She wasn’t asked for reparations by the tanned ophthalmologist, however.
“… remediate unfair bias and drive greater equity in publishing and research more broadly.”
Eh?! If you don’t know someone’s race in the first place, that would inevitably mean there cannot possibly be any “unfair bias”…What are these people smoking?!
Wankers.
What they mean is that life is unfairly biased and they, being virtuous, must remedy this so that outcomes for all are the same. Well, not quite all…just the favoured groups.
The key word is “equity”. What they mean is that non-white people must achieve as a minimum in every sphere at the same level as whites, or better.
It’s a war on white people.
It’s a war on people of all skin colours who value their integrity over toeing the neo-Marxist line for personal gain. The abuse from the intersectionalist tent towards black people who refuse to become their pets is especially vile.
Yes, good point
“it raises the possibility that my personal characteristics could be considered during the editorial process, or that I could be subjected to some form of differential treatment by this journal or publisher on the basis of my personal characteristics.”
That is the absolutely central point of the exercise. I can’t help the feeling that despite this corruption creeping in since the rise of ‘post-normal science’ in the 90’s – not so much under the radar but in plain sight – the minority of academics who haven’t already jumped on the ideological bandwagon still struggle to grasp its purpose or implications. Or perhaps they’d rather not try, and prefer to believe the new paradigm will treat them fairly.
If they cannot understand the purpose they are not very academic or bright. There are plenty of opportunities for manual labourers.
I guess the safest policy is to lie through your teeth and claim to be a black, disabled and gay man that self identifies as a woman. Alternatively you could claim to be a working class, fit and healthy, heterosexual white man. Good luck with that! You’ll certainly need it!
There is absolutely no defence in my view for this policy, but the pandemic has shown us that covert and overt censorship has already become the established norm in publishing and is clearly strongly influenced by funding issues involving the obvious suspects!
Matt Walsh & Ryan Webb have shown us how…
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1656721913811435523
Race gender equality diversity and climate. ———These are the only tools in woke toolbox. You don’t need talent, or skill or creativity. You only need the tools in the box.
Just a moment. There are many more non-white people in the World. Can we correct that please?
What if someone is mixed race?
What if you’re 25% or 50% or 75% of a race/ethicity?
What race are you then?
Why does only the Western world ask for this information?
Because there is a War on the West.