|
Dear all,
I also agree with David. When you are outside North America it is very clear. Most of the journals we publish are of an "American Society" of something. Then the editorial list is also mostly from
this geographic area. I am no way implying these journals are biased, but it is good to be aware that our own perspectives may be shaped and limited by where we are looking from. Why is it such a hurtful idea that it raises such strong reactions?
Now, about the topic of bias in science: I will reiterate what others said, please
do watch "Picture a scientist," there is still 2 more days. It is heart wrenching. And as
quoting from a person who has done a lot of research on this topic ".. today the evidence is
so much clear that he need not rely on his own experience. He just needs to look at the data. That's what
he's want us to do for his science." Now Helia did just that and sent us two papers (one in PNAS, if that is your
kind of thing) on status bias. I think there was no reply to this, other than "I have not seen it myself." Well, for what it is worth it, here is another one, title "Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts:
a systematic review and meta-analysis":
Let me also mention that another very well established and very successful auditory scientist, Monita Chatterjee, started this BIPOC-CSD network:
There was a special session at ASA conference, organized by yet another well established and successful scientist, Ben Munson, on "Infusing Social Justice in Speech and Hearing Acoustics Pedagogy:
Principles and Case Studies." It was incredibly eye-opening to see even in our research where we think our samples represent general society actually rarely do:
If they are putting all this effort into these activities instead of working on own career advancement with publications and grants, there must be a good reason?
If we really insist on personal experience, rather than data, I can also do that. I can match yours' experiences with "well, I have seen it myself and many times over as an AE in multiple journals
and having published heavily" over the years. I have seen some well-established and respected scientists (and people I personally like very much) entirely ignoring reviewers' comments that no early-career person would ever dare to do... but also, in those
situations, why are we even wasting reviewers' previous time?
Like David, I am not yet sold to the idea of pre-prints, and I only do it when our students or a colleague convince me. But this is because at this point I can get away with it (=privilege), and
that I would rather put my time into supporting my students, mentees, and all others who need it in the field. If there is a new form of publishing/disseminating that seems less-biased with fairer opportunities but still has some quality control, we will adapt.
Best,
Deniz
--------------------------
Prof. dr. ir. D. Başkent Speech Perception Lab (dB SPL)
Department of Otorhinolaryngology
School of Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience (BCN)
W.J. Kolff Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Materials Science
University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG)
Tel: +31 (0) 50 3612540 (KNO Office)University of Groningen (RUG) Mobile: +31 6 25651377
Visiting address: UMCG, Hanzeplein 1, Room P4.220
Van: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> namens David McAlpine <david.mcalpine@xxxxxxxxx>
Verzonden: zaterdag 10 juni 2023 11:48 Aan: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Onderwerp: Re: Biases in career evolution 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.
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 > > De inhoud van dit bericht is vertrouwelijk en alleen bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Anderen dan de geadresseerde(n) mogen geen gebruik maken van dit bericht, het niet openbaar maken of op enige wijze verspreiden of vermenigvuldigen. Het UMCG kan niet aansprakelijk gesteld worden voor een incomplete aankomst of vertraging van dit verzonden bericht. The contents of this message are confidential and only intended for the eyes of the addressee(s). Others than the addressee(s) are not allowed to use this message, to make it public or to distribute or multiply this message in any way. The UMCG cannot be held responsible for incomplete reception or delay of this transferred message. |