Deliverable D4.6 – Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB) in scholarly communication - working with communities to develop resources for multilingualism, gender equity and accessible and inclusive websites
Creators
Contributors
Others:
Description
This report describes the project results, additional literature review, and collaborative
process to develop the DIAMAS toolkits and guidelines related to Equity, Diversity,
Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB). The focus of this report is on the topics of multilingualism,
gender equity, and accessible and inclusive websites as key dimensions of EDIB, which is
the seventh core component of the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS) (Consortium of the
DIAMAS project, 2024). The report builds on the work summarized in the D3.1 IPSP Best
Practices Quality evaluation criteria, best practices, and assessment systems for
Institutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs) (Ševkušić & Kuchma, 2023).
The main activity for T4.6 is to develop toolkits and guidelines to help IPSPs to manage and
increase the availability of multilingual content, to address language and gender biases in
their operations, and to develop more accessible and inclusive websites, content and
metadata. Rather than generating original information, the goal was to survey, analyze,
curate and repackage existing work in this area. This report explains the collaborative
process used to identify such materials and to develop the DIAMAS toolkits and guidelines
related to EDIB.
The report opens by contextualizing existing disparities in scholarly publishing. With
regard to language, it has been established that using one key language for scholarly
publishing presents disadvantages for individuals, research, and society more broadly.
Individuals may need to invest more time and money and face higher rejection rates.
Privileging one language also privileges one social, cultural and economic perspective and
knowledge system, and it hampers uptake of findings by local actors. In terms of gender
disparities, men are cited more often, are better represented in key positions, and are
overrepresented in research studies. As regards accessible and inclusive websites,
content and metadata, inequities arise when designers do not consider aspects such as
alt-text, captions, adjustable font/size/colour, or plain or inclusive language. Finally, while
it is convenient to study dimensions independently, they may intersect, meaning that a
person who is marginalized along one dimension may also be marginalized along others,
with cumulative effects.
EDIB issues are sensitive and complex, and it can be intimidating for IPSPs to figure out
how to proceed. To develop the toolsuites and guidelines, two main approaches were used.
First, the existing DIAMAS project documentation was studied, including D2.3 Institutional
Publishing in the ERA: results from the DIAMAS survey (Armengou et al., 2023) and D3.3 Report on the gap analysis results (Brun et al., 2023). These DIAMAS project reports were
studied to determine the state of the field with regard to barriers, concerns, gaps, and
progress to date. In addition, a large-scale literature review was undertaken, which
included not only academic literature but also grey literature (e.g., policies, popularized
works, professional magazines). Nearly 600 items were collected, organized and stored in a
shared Zotero library for analysis.
EDIB is a cross-cutting issue in scholarly publishing. Therefore, while EDIB is one of the
seven core components of the DOAS, some aspects may touch the other six components
too. For this reason, the results of the analysis are structured around all seven of the core
components of the DOAS. Key findings include the following:
1) Funding: Limited and unstable financial resources pose a challenge for meeting
accessibility standards and enriching metadata. To reduce costs related to translation and
editing, the use of free AI-based translation technologies, as well as collaborative
platforms where scholars can exchange linguistic services, are being actively explored.
Training (e.g., in unconscious bias, AI literacy) is one area where surveyed IPSPs see
potential for collaborating to save costs.
2) Legal ownership, mission and governance: Gender equity can be seen as an aspect of
governance, and multiple reports show women occupying low-paying, precarious posts
while men are more likely to have senior decision-making roles. Gender equity plans can
help, but only 25% of the IPSPs surveyed have implemented such a plan to date, and others
mentioned that guidance is needed.
3) Open Science: Some EDIB dimensions are facets of openness, and open reviews come
up frequently. Double or triple anonymization (where identities of authors, reviewers, and
editors, are unknown to one another) is a way to reduce gender bias during reviews. Fewer
than 20% of the IPSPs surveyed have implemented open reviews, but an additional 30%
are considering it. It is important to consider how anonymization and openness of reviews
might interact, and to understand different degrees of openness. Multilingual abstracts
and plain language summaries offer an entry point into creating a more multilingual and
accessible scholarly publishing ecosystem.
4) Editorial management, editorial quality and research integrity: Concerns about lack of
diversity among authors, reviewers, and editorial boards came up frequently, and different
types of diversity statements and monitoring efforts are ways to address this. Training
about unconscious bias, or pointing to existing guidelines and resources on this topic, are also recommended. Policies about reporting on sample populations in research can also help.
5) Technical service efficiency: A lack of human resources and specialized skills block the
implementation of some accessibility-related EDIB measures. It is vital to build
accessibility into the workflow rather than dealing with it in an ad hoc way. AI-based tools
can support some tasks, such as creating multilingual or enriched metadata, but human
expertise remains vital.
6) Visibility, communication, marketing, and impact: Discoverability is tied to language.
Impact metrics are hotly debated among IPSPs, who may have concerns that displaying
impact metrics for publications in languages other than English could create a negative
reinforcement loop (e.g. if these metrics are lower than comparable English-language
publications, scholars may not publish there). Citation-based metrics also have
implications since publications in languages other than English tend to be cited less often,
and policies requiring citation diversity statements, combined with AI-based translation
technologies, may help.
7) EDIB: The landscape survey and gap analysis reveal that implementing EDIB is far from
standard practice and there is much variation across IPSPs. Additional EDIB points raised
include the need for clear guidelines about multilingual publication options, about using
inclusive language and about preparing appropriate peer feedback (i.e., separating content
issues from language issues). Relaxing word limits (e.g., for abstracts) could allow authors
to write in a more accessible way.
Several practical implications, lessons learned, and future possibilities emerged:
- EDIB is complex, but interim measures and stepped approaches can get us started.
- Four main types of gaps exist and can hinder EDIB implementation, including social
gaps (different practices), moral gaps (different values), interpretive gaps (different
understandings), and practical gaps (different capacities/resources for implementation). - Identify priorities and try to accomplish some of the more easily achievable targets to
begin. - Technology can play a role, but it must be supported by meaningful policies.
- Accessibility legislation differs between countries and regions, so be aware of local
requirements. - Compliance (for accessibility) is not a one-off issue but requires ongoing
commitment. - Take a holistic view because fixing one problem could risk introducing another.
- Remember the project scope, but be open to learning from related areas.
To engage the community, two webinars were held and surveys were developed. In
addition, a blog post was published on the LSE impact blog, and all activities were shared
widely on social media. The team also participated in a mutual learning exercise with
OPERAS and OABN. Feedback on the DIAMAS toolkits and guidelines was then
incorporated into revised versions of these resources.
Notes (English)
Files
DIAMAS D.4.6 - EDIB in Scholarly Communication.pdf
Files
(1.5 MB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:a2066230daff06c596b2f8ed908d575a
|
1.5 MB | Preview Download |