Inequalities and biases affect all aspects of the research system – from how funding is allocated to the peer-review process. This collection of articles highlights how systemic racism, gender bias and other forms of inequality have a negative impact on the research enterprise, and how institutions and individual scientists are working to make science more equitable, diverse and inclusive. You can read about the work eLife is doing to tackle inequalities in research and publishing here: Update on our actions to promote equity, diversity and inclusion
The MAVEN Initiative has been designed to encourage mid-career women scientists, particularly women of color, to move into leadership positions in science.
The number of articles containing non-inclusive terms such as "blacklist" and "whitelist" are increasing in the life sciences literature.
Grant applications submitted to the NIH by African-American/Black PIs are less likely to be funded than applications from white PIs, and the NIH must find a solution that eliminates this racial disparity.
The eLife Early-Career Advisory Group calls for radical changes at eLife and other journals to make science more diverse and inclusive.
Lockdowns in the United States caused by the COVID-19 pandemic appear related to a decrease in the number of women publishing research papers, especially as first authors.
eLife, like the rest of science, must tackle the many inequalities experienced by Black scientists.
The communities of eLife are committed to using our voices, actions and resources to confront anti-Black racism and racial inequality in science, medicine and beyond.
Mentorship, financial security and a positive sense of self-worth increase the likelihood that underrepresented minority and female postdocs will pursue a career in academia.
In studies of gender disparities in academia, increased focus is required on within-group variability and between-group overlap of distributions when interpreting and reporting results.
A workshop run by DORA identified a number of ways to reduce bias in hiring and funding decisions.
A workshop convened by the Medical Research Council gave PhD students the opportunity to discuss how research careers could be made more inclusive for black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals.
Microbiology and Infectious Disease
An analysis of papers in which two or more authors shared first-author position found that male authors were more likely than female authors to appear first in the author list.
We suggest five ways in which biology departments can improve their hiring processes in order to achieve gender equity in their workforce.
The organizers of a recent symposium on diversity challenges in science, technology, engineering and math outline approaches to improve diversity and inclusion across all career stages.
An analysis of 31,873 clinical trials shows that adequate statistical power was most often present in trials with a male first author and a female last author.
Gender-bias in peer reviewing might persist even when gender-equity is reached because both male and female editors operate with a same-gender preference whose characteristics differ by editor-gender.
A systems-level analysis of the biomedical workforce in the US shows that current strategies to enhance faculty diversity are unlikely to have a significant impact, and that there is a need to increase the number of PhDs from underrepresented minority backgrounds who move on to postdoctoral positions.
eLife deputy editor Fiona M Watt recounts some of her personal experiences as a senior female academic in a male-dominated environment.
Marcus Lambert, Assistant Dean of Diversity at Weill Cornell Medicine, describes how improving diversity in the scientific workforce is going to take more than attracting students from underrepresented groups.