To support my assertion that one size doesn't fit all, let us look at to main bias issues, namely gender and economics. Assuming the fact that the "leading scientific nations" from which reviewers are drawn are likely the USA and various European countries (and not solely from the bastion of liberty of the USA):
Regarding gender, policies on gender parity in hiring and positions of representation already within academic institutions varies significantly between these countries, obviously leading to differing impacts on mitigating associated bias. On larger policy, comparing maternity/paternity leave across countries, a known issue in promoting gender equality in the workforce and career advancement, clearly shows significant differences already within Europe, let alone comparing to the USA.
Regarding economic bias, let us simply consider as a starting point the cost of higher education. University enrollment in many countries of Europe is relatively cheap tending towards free while in the USA fees can mount to several $100k for an undergraduate degree. For graduate degrees in science, many European universities require students to be paid, a stipend or salary, such that the notion of student loans is a rarity. Clearly, these differences lead to quite striking inequalities in opportunity between such "leading nations" and the importance of personal economic resources in pursuing academic excellence.
These are but two examples which would seem hard to ignore. There is little in the way of bias equality/uniformity even in these few countries.
As a thought, if one want to promote equality, maybe authors should consider choosing journals hosted in countries where such values are more prevalent in the system. Alternatively, we can take more active roles in journals and promote such diversity when selecting reviewers (I try to always chose reviewers from different countries, different from the authors, for various bias reducing reasons). This is of course more directly.possible in journals run by actual scientists, and not industrial publication houses... to bring the discussion back to peer-review.
Brian FG Katz
Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique
Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Institut ∂'Alembert
I strongly disagree Brian. The explicit connection of review with general bias operates out of those leading scientific nations that host the important journals and from which the vast majority of reviewers are drawn. These are inseparable.
-------- Original message --------
From: David McAlpine <david.mcalpine@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 6/10/23 11:48 (GMT+01:00)
To: "Brian FG Katz (SU)" <brian.katz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Biases in career evolution
Sent from my iPad
> On 10 Jun 2023, at 7:44 pm, Brian FG Katz (SU) <brian.katz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> With the aim of providing at least a clearer forum for this discussion, let us at least provide a relevant message header.
> I would then only like to add/point out that which scientific questions and peer-review journal publications are international by nature and affect us all equally, questions of gender/racial/religious/economic/nationality/genetic/age/etc. biases *and how they are being addressed* is highly cultural and regional around the world, even specific to different institutions. As such, generalizations and observations of the presence of issues, or lack thereof, are going to be equally regional in nature.
> I would therefore only recommend that if there are any further discussions on this topic here, in this international forum, that such caveats are considered when both presenting and defending arguements.
> Brian FG Katz
> Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique
> Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Institut ∂'Alembert