Addressing gaps in author and reviewer gender diversity

We reflect on self-reported gender information for corresponding authors and reviewers at Nature Microbiology and identify actions to address disparities.

Diversity matters — in the lab, in the authorship of research and scientific opinion articles, in peer review, and in the editorial teams responsible for overseeing the publication process. It brings different perspectives, approaches and questions that can otherwise be overlooked. Studies show that diversity in authorship is associated with increased impact of research as measured by number of citations¹. For gender specifically, novelty and research impact positively link with gender diversity in teams². As a result, a team at Nature Portfolio performed an analysis on gender diversity in corresponding authorship and reviewers across the portfolio of journals³. These findings were discussed in a recent editorial in Nature⁴. Briefly, the data show that most research articles are submitted by male corresponding authors across all disciplines, though the degree of disparity varies by research field. There was no evidence of bias in editorial processes against female corresponding authors either in the decision to peer review or accept manuscripts, and editors can promote increased representation of women as corresponding authors in commissioned articles such as Reviews and Perspectives.

Across the fields of microbiology and immunology, women constitute approximately 52% of the research community, according to an Elsevier report published in 2024⁵. Specific data on gender representation for the microbiology field are sparse; however, participation is probably within the parity zone — something we should celebrate. Nevertheless, participation is only one feature of the research enterprise and this parity has not historically been reflected in authorship. Indeed, a survey of American Society for Microbiology journals published in 2020 revealed that only 30% of first authors, and 23.4% of corresponding authors, identified as women at the submission stage. There was also little change in these numbers for published articles⁶. This represents a considerable gap when compared with 50% of participants in the field identifying as women. Publication of research can affect funding acquisition, career progression and recognition — fostering diverse authorship can in turn feed back positively into diversity in the research community. For these reasons, Nature Microbiology is committed to encouraging a diverse publishing landscape.

As a first step, we reflected on the outcomes of the data analysis for Nature Microbiology. Unfortunately, the results show that gender disparity continues both in terms of our authorship and our reviewers.

Of primary research articles submitted to the journal between January 2023 and July 2024, only 23% were submitted by a corresponding author identifying as a woman, similar to the levels reported in the American Society for Microbiology survey⁶. This is also comparable to the percentage recorded for other life science journals in the Nature Portfolio, but it is some distance from the parity that is seen at the level of participation in microbiology. Interestingly, more parity was seen in the outcomes after submission to the journal. We see a similar percentage of papers sent out to review and ultimately accepted regardless of corresponding author reported gender. This suggests that after submission, there is no overt bias or discrimination based on gender throughout our editorial pipeline from either editors or reviewers. On the other hand, these data also suggest that problems exist at, or before, the submission stage. This could be due to women not having the opportunity to be corresponding authors. Indeed, the representation of women in research across all disciplines reduces at more senior career stages⁵. This problem, known as ‘the leaky pipeline’, is discussed in a previous Nature Microbiology editorial⁷. It could also be that women are choosing to publish elsewhere: women are less likely to submit to more selective journals, as evidenced both by the recent Nature Portfolio report showing that the proportion of women corresponding authors decreases as journal selectivity increases^4,3, and previous reports on gender disparities in submission⁸. More work is needed to understand and overcome how these and other factors contribute to gender disparity at the submission stage.

When we look at authorship of Review and Perspective content, from data also gathered between January 2023 and July 2024, only 19% of these articles at Nature Microbiology come from corresponding authors identifying as women. Although some of these articles are submissions, the vast majority are commissioned by editors. This means that we can and should seek to improve this situation. We have ongoing initiatives in our fully commissioned shorter comment and opinion formats. For example, our Microbe Matters column, wherein researchers share the personal stories behind their decision to study their microbe of choice, offers space to commission from a wider range of authors. Current data show that 69% of these articles have been authored by those identifying as women so far. Our ‘Amplifying diverse voices’ series is an ongoing collection of commissioned Journal Club articles authored by underrepresented groups that summarize major advances in microbiology. We actively encourage the involvement of early career researchers in our News and Views articles. However, more work is clearly needed when we consider our longer Review and Perspective articles. Going forwards we are taking steps to ensure we are purposeful in commissioning a more diverse set of authors, both in terms of gender diversity and geographical diversity.

The Nature Portfolio report also delved into the self-reported gender of reviewers. Here, too, there was imbalance: 25% of reviewers involved in peer review of research articles at Nature Microbiology identified as women. Given that finding peer reviewers is influenced by their visibility and publication record, as well as their availability, it may be that disparity in authorship feeds forwards into disparity in reviewer gender. Women also traditionally take on many other roles at home and at work that may limit their availability, while many journals are attempting to address disparity and potentially putting more pressure and work on women. Nature Microbiology encourages reviewers to include and acknowledge early career researchers as co-reviewers, which we hope will work towards increasing reviewer diversity more broadly. Efforts to track reviewer diversity over time by Nature Metabolism provide evidence that such editorial efforts can work⁹.

We acknowledge that the data presented here provide a limited snapshot of the larger picture. We lack, and need, data on other facets of author and reviewer diversity, including representation by non-binary and gender-diverse authors and reviewers, not to mention by career stage, ethnicity and geographical location, for example. This is critical as diversity is more than just gender balance. However, we view the data we already have as a call to action.

In light of the findings above, tangible actions are needed. Going forwards, we will track the self-reported diversity of our authors and reviewers. We will be making a conscious effort to diversify the authors of our commissioned content and our reviewers to surface a range of ideas and perspectives that will ultimately benefit the field. We will also proactively work to ensure our outreach reaches all potential authors, beyond our current author group. This will help us to commission from a wider range of voices, and to encourage those who perceive barriers to submission to navigate the publication process at Nature Microbiology.

As a wider community of microbiologists, whether editors, researchers, publishers or society members, and at a time when some institutions and stakeholders are removing support for actions that promote diversity, equity and inclusion, we have a responsibility to continue these efforts. We must work together, whether through creating and maintaining researcher networks or communities^10,11, student initiatives, or by providing crucial and constructive support to colleagues and collaborators. Only together can we build a research community that encourages and enables all microbiologists to do the best research they possibly can.