Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Sexual Orientation of Editors at Leading Medical and Scientific Journals

Abstract

This survey study assesses the diversity of editors at leading medical and scientific journals.

Editors of medical and scientific journals select and develop the research and opinion articles that are published, with important implications for research, patient care, and policy. Despite widespread stated commitments to promote diversity among editorial staff, there is little information about the composition of editorial teams. We developed and administered a survey to assess the diversity of editors at leading medical and scientific journals.

Methods

The survey, based on prior studies¹ and input from content experts, had questions about demographics and professional characteristics (eAppendix in the Supplement).

Beginning in June of 2020, we used the Web of Science 2020 Journal Citation Reports² and expert opinion to select 25 medical and scientific journals (17 based in the US and 8 in Europe) with impact factors greater than 10; namely, the American Journal of Psychiatry, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Cell, Circulation, Circulation Research, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), JAMA Internal Medicine, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Oncology, JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA Psychiatry, JAMA Surgery, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Lancet, Lancet Neurology, Lancet Oncology, Lancet Psychiatry, Nature, Nature Medicine, Nature Reviews Cancer, New England Journal of Medicine, and Science (eFigure in the Supplement).

We used mastheads and web pages (July 2020 to September 2020) to create a convenience sample of editors with job titles that suggested they regularly choose or develop content. We sent emails to the editors in chief introducing the study, asking that they notify their editors to expect the survey, and seeking input on which editor positions to include. Of the 25 editors in chief, 11 (44%) responded, and 9 (36%) confirmed which editor positions to include.

Between November 2020 and January 2021 we administered the survey via email, with 3 follow-up reminders. The University of California, San Francisco, institutional review board deemed the study exempt research on August 26, 2020, because data were derived from surveys. Data were analyzed with Stata (version 14.2, StataCorp).

Results

Of the 681 editors, 654 had an identifiable working email address to receive the survey, and 368 of the 654 responded (56.3%). Editors were primarily employed as academic faculty or in editing, writing, or publishing (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of the 368 Respondents From the 25 Journals.

Characteristic	No. (%)
	Respondents (n = 368)
Editorial position
Editor in chief	20 (5.4)
Deputy editor	37 (10.1)
Associate editor	158 (42.9)
Statistical editor	26 (7.1)
Senior editor	31 (8.4)
Othera	92 (25)
Prefer to not answer	4 (1.1)
Region of residenceb
United States	220 (59.8)
Europe	127 (34.5)
Asia	10 (2.7)
Otherc	9 (2.4)
Prefer to not answer	3 (0.8)
Principal career positionb
Faculty position in academia	213 (57.9)
Science or medical writing/editing/publishing	142 (38.6)
Physician (nonacademic position)	11 (3.0)
Otherd	9 (2.4)
Prefer to not answer	1 (0.3)
Academic rank
Professor	169 (45.9)
None	128 (34.8)
Associate professor	32 (8.7)
Assistant professor	21 (5.7)
Othere	15 (4.1)
Prefer to not answer	3 (0.8)
Expertise
Cardiology	77 (20.9)
Basic science	29 (7.9)
Internal medicine	27 (7.3)
Oncology	27 (7.3)
Psychiatry and mental health	24 (6.5)
Public health	20 (5.4)
Neurology	19 (5.1)
Family medicine	12 (3.3)
HIV/infectious diseases	11 (3.0)
Pediatrics	10 (2.7)
Otherf	102 (27.8)
Prefer to not answer	10 (2.7)

^aOther editorial positions included: assistant editor (13), senior assistant editor (10), not specified (10), editor-at-large (9), editorial fellow (7), executive editor (5), clinical editor (4), and section editor (4).

^bCategories where respondents were able to select multiple responses. Percentages may total more than 100%; denominator was the number of respondents.

^cOther regions of residence included: Canada (5), Australia/Oceania (2), Middle East (1), South America (1). No respondents listed Africa.

^dOther principal career positions included: government or nonprofit organization (research) (6), government or nonprofit organization (nonresearch) (2), and not specified (1). No respondents selected business (nonbiotech), industry (nonresearch), industry (research), or law.

^eOther academic ranks included: trainee (7), lecturer (3), instructor (2), and not specified (3).

^fOther expertise included: not specified (72), general surgery (6), diabetes and endocrinology (5), emergency medicine (5), allergy and immunology (3), obstetrics/gynecology and women's health (2), and pulmonary medicine (2). The following had 1 response each: anesthesiology, critical care, gastroenterology, nephrology, pathology and lab medicine, rheumatology, and urology.

The mean age of the respondents was 51.1 years; 187 (50.8%) were men, and 177 (48.1%) were women (Table 2). Of the 20 editors in chief who responded, 7 (35%) were women, as were 8 of 26 (30.8%) of the statistical editors. Of the 368 editors, 284 (77.2%) identified as White, 55 (14.9%) as Asian, 14 (3.8%) as Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin, and 4 (1.1%) as Black. Regarding sexual orientation, 325 (88.3%) identified as heterosexual, 12 (3.3%) as bisexual, 11 (3.0%) as gay or lesbian, and 10 (2.7%) as either queer, asexual, questioning/unsure, pansexual, or other/not specified; 13 (3.5%) did not answer.

Table 2. Age, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity by Editorial Position for the 368 Respondents.

Characteristic	No. (%)a
	All	Editor in chief	Deputy editor	Associate editor	Statistical editor	Senior editor	Other editorial positionsb
No.	368	20	37	158	26	31	96
Age, mean (SD)	51.1 (13.3)	56.3 (8.3)	57.6 (11.2)	53.6 (11.9)	55.6 (13.9)	42.4 (8.9)	44.7 (14.6)
Genderc
Male	187 (50.8)	13 (65)	20 (54.1)	89 (56.3)	18 (69.2)	9 (29.0)	38 (39.6)
Female	177 (48.1)	7 (35)	17 (45.9)	67 (42.4)	8 (30.8)	22 (71.0)	56 (58.3)
Nonbinary	1 (0.3)	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.0)
No answer	3 (0.8)	0	0	2 (1.3)	0	0	1 (1.0)
Race/ethnicityd
White	284 (77.2)	16 (80)	31 (83.8)	117 (74.1)	23 (88.5)	22 (71.0)	75 (78.1)
Asian	55 (14.9)	2 (10)	4 (10.8)	30 (19.0)	0	6 (19.4)	13 (13.5)
Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin	14 (3.8)	2 (10)	3 (8.1)	5 (3.2)	1 (3.8)	1 (3.2)	2 (2.1)
Black	4 (1.1)	0	1 (2.7)	3 (1.9)	0	0	0
Pacific Islander	1 (0.3)	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.0)
Other	12 (3.3)	1 (5)	0	5 (3.2)	0	1 (3.2)	5 (5.2)
No answer	6 (1.6)	0	0	2 (1.3)	2 (7.7)	1 (3.2)	1 (1.0)

^aRespondents were able to select multiple responses. Percentages may total greater than 100%; denominator used was the number of respondents.

^bOther editorial positions included editorial fellow, assistant editor, editor-at-large, other, and no answer.

^cNo respondents identified as transgender male, transgender female, or other.

^dNo respondents identified as American Indian or Native American.

Discussion

At 25 leading medical and scientific journals, our survey found nearly equal numbers of men and women editors, more than 75% White editors, about 15% Asian editors, very few Black, Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin editors, and no editors that identified as American Indian or Native American. For the US-based journals, the percentage of editors who identified as Black (1.1%) can be compared with 3.6% of US medical school faculty, 5.0% of practicing physicians in the US,³ and 13.0% of US adults⁴ who are Black; the editors who identified as Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin (3.8%) can be compared with 5.5% of medical school faculty, 5.8% of practicing physicians,³ and 16.4% of adults⁴ with these ethnicities. Data about sexual orientation and gender minority individuals (ie, nonbinary, transgender) in comparable populations are limited. About 11% to 12% of US medical school students identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer⁵; this can be compared with approximately 9% of editors, although none identified as transgender.

Our findings, although limited to a sample of 25 journals, provide novel data on multiple aspects of editor diversity via self-report, not assumptions about an editor’s identity based on a name or photograph. We could not, however, determine if the 368 editors who responded have similar characteristics to the 286 (43.7%) who did not. Moreover, although we asked each editor in chief to confirm the editors to survey, only 9 (36%) did so. Our race and ethnicity response options were based on widely used categories, but did not include important subcategories (eg, specific Asian ethnicities). Nonetheless, these 25 leading medical and scientific journals have substantial collective influence. As such, these data inform the ongoing discussion about the current state of editor diversity at top medical and scientific journals. Specifically, they identify racial and ethnic diversity of editorial leadership as an area in urgent need of improvement.

Supplement.

eAppendix. Survey Invitation and Survey

eFigure. Flow Chart of Survey Population and Respondents