Diversity in Peer Review
今年同行评审周（2018年9月10日至15日）的主题是在同行评审中的多样性和纳入。要了解如何了解应对社区如何观看本主题，应成员服务小组委员会在同行审查周内推出了3周的在线同行审查多样性调查。感谢您参加匿名调查的391名受访者，其中大多数是编辑（66％）或出版商（19％）。以下是答复的摘要，包括一些由“其他”类别中的受访者编写的一些：
• 77% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that diversity and inclusion are important in peer review
•
多样性和包容适用于
- 编辑/编辑委员会出版物（89％）
- Peer reviewers for publications (87%)
- Peer review panels for funding/awards (79%)
- Peer review panels for job applications/promotions/tenure (79%)
- Other (3%), including conference organisers/panels
• Kinds of diversity that are important in peer review:
- Area of expertise (88%)
- Gender (77%)
- Race/ethnicity (74%)
- Age (66%)
- 其他（21％），包括地点/国籍，组织/机构类型，职业阶段/教育水平，残疾，性取向，文化，经验
•
Definitions of peer reviewer diversity (N=367):
- Proportional representation approaching that of a discipline/community (34%)
- Any degree of non-homogeneity (29%)
- Proportional representation matching that of a discipline/community (21%)
- Equal proportional representation (12%)
- Other (4%), including:
- substantial degree of non-homogeneity/heterogeneity
- 至少与纪律/社区的比例表示
- proportional to the diversity in published topics
- integrity/competence/expertise is more important than diversity
• My employer/publication (N=384)…
- …has achieved an ideal level of diversity in its peer reviewer pool (37%)
- ...值在其同行评审过程中的不同参与和意见（71％）
- …has policies to respond appropriately to alleged cases of discrimination in its peer review process (43%)
- …has diversity policies for nominating/selecting members for its peer reviewer pool (25%)
- …has diversity policies for selecting peer reviewers when evaluating individual manuscripts/applications (26%)
- …provides in-house training to promote diversity and inclusion in peer review (13%)
- …provides training to potential peer reviewers, to promote diversity in its peer review pool (14%)
• Additional comments from several respondents:
- ...多样性取决于期刊的性质
- ……多样性可能不是一样重要reviewer’s ability, integrity, and willingness
- …relevant data are not or are not yet collected
- …in general, the reviewer pool needs expanding to avoid overburdening the same individuals
The survey results show that diversity and inclusion are valued and may be context-specific, and that relevant policies and training are commonly lacking. Increasing the diversity of reviewers as well as opportunities for them to provide different perspectives could potentially both improve peer review quality and reduce bias. Diversity and inclusion, respectively, could be viewed as good theory (maintaining a diverse database of willing and able reviewers) and good practice (having procedures in place to encourage participation and involvement so as to actually obtain diverse views and opinions from reviewers).
Recent initiatives to encourage diversity and inclusion in research publishing include aDiversity and Inclusion Manifesto学习与职业社会出版商的协会，建立了Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communication(C4DISC). However, as reflected by recommendations in thePublons 2018 Global State of Peer Reviewreport and duringevents taking place in Peer Review Week，需要公平和平衡，代表各种作者和研究员社区，特别是新兴经济体的社区，以及改善审核培训和认可。
COPE plans to make use of available resources and results of the 2018 COPE Peer Review Diversity Survey and will hold further discussions among the COPE community to inform its guidance for members, as well as its own strategies for diversity and inclusion. It is clear that a holistic and concerted effort is called for, and COPE is keen to bring together multiple stakeholders to the discussion, including publishers, editors, peer review services, and research institutions.
Chair, Member Services, COPETrevor Lane