By inviting Editorial Manager users to self-report their gender identity, ethnic origins, and race (diversity data), Elsevier facilitates an evidence-based approach to advancing inclusion in research. By analyzing these data, Elsevier aims to increase representation among external participants in Elsevier’s journal editorial processes, remediate unfair editorial bias, and drive greater inclusion for all in publishing and research more broadly.

The Royal Society of Chemistry-led Joint Commitment collective brought together 53 publishers as part of its diversity data collection in scholarly publishing initiative to develop global gender identity, race and ethnicity schemas, which were endorsed in April 2022. Development of the schemas was an iterative process that drew on input from the Joint Commitment group, external subject matter expert Professor of Sociology Ann Morning at New York University, Elsevier’s Inclusion & Diversity Advisory Board, and feedback from a large-scale, global researcher survey (more in this Nature article) Elsevier conducted. Elsevier and Aries jointly announced their planned implementation of the endorsed diversity questions into Editorial Manager in June 2022.

In this context "editorial processes" refers to what is involved in the journal publishing lifecycle from manuscript submission to final publication and which members of the scientific community are involved in that lifecycle.

The first time you log into a journal on Editorial Manager after the questions have been added to that journal, you are asked to click a link then invited to self-report your data. When you click that link, you will be presented with each of the questions starting with gender identity, followed by ethnic origins, then race.

Self-reporting any of this data is entirely voluntary and optional. While the questions cannot be skipped, you can select the “I prefer not to disclose” option for any or all the questions.

You are in full control of your data and can change your response at any time. Simply visit the “Update my information” page in Editorial Manager. There you can change any of your responses, including to “I prefer not to disclose”, which overwrites previous answers.

Each journal has its own instance of Editorial Manager. Elsevier understands that answering the questions for each journal with which you interact can be frustrating. Elsevier is investigating how different journal Editorial Manager sites can ultimately connect with one another to make self-reporting this data less burdensome; regrettably such capability is not yet available.

The privacy and security of your self-reported data is a priority (Elsevier privacy principles). Elsevier uses appropriate technical and organizational measures, including encryption in transit and at rest, to safeguard these data, which are collected through Editorial Manager but stored in a separate database with separate access controls. Your self-reported data cannot be seen, accessed, or used by anyone during the manuscript submission or peer review process.

Access to your self-reported data is subject to business rules, carefully controlled, and limited to a small number of Elsevier employees, specifically:

• The champions supporting the initiative;
• The IT engineers supporting the database reporting infrastructure; and
• The senior publisher/editor for each Elsevier journal portfolio.

Your self-reported data cannot be seen, accessed, or used by anyone as part of the manuscript submission or peer review process. Outside that process, visual summaries of the data are available to the senior publisher and editors of each journal portfolio in an aggregated, de-identified form.

Your self-reported data will be used to improve inclusion across journal editorial processes. Elsevier aims to review the editorial process holistically, from submission through to publication, including reviewer and Editorial Board selection. If there are lawful opportunities to further advance inclusion, such as by enhancing outreach, we aim to take action to adopt them; similarly, if we discover biases in our editorial processes, we will work to remediate them. However, your self-reported data will not be seen, accessed, or used by anyone during the manuscript submission or peer review process.

Elsevier will never sell any personally identifiable self-reported data to any third party. Only anonymized, aggregated data and analyses will ever be shared publicly, e.g., for use in Elsevier’s future reports on gender in research. You can review Elsevier’s past reports here.

The Royal Society of Chemistry-led Joint Commitment collective brought together 53 publishers as part of its diversity data collection in scholarly publishing initiative to develop global diversity data schemas, which were endorsed in April 2022. Development of the schemas was an iterative process that drew on input from the Joint Commitment group, external subject matter expert Professor of Sociology Ann Morning at New York University, Elsevier’s Inclusion & Diversity Advisory Board, and feedback from a large-scale, global researcher survey (more in this Nature article).

Our ambition was to develop a set of questions and options that resonate with researchers we serve from around the globe to engender a willingness to self-report, not to devise a single, objective, or prescriptive “truth” about researchers’ gender identity nor race and ethnicity.

Elsevier and Aries jointly announced planned implementation of the endorsed diversity data collection questions into Editorial Manager in June 2022. Aries will enable the questions for any of its Editorial Manager clients (regardless of Joint Commitment membership), and other Joint Commitment publishers also plan to introduce the questions using other editorial management platforms.

We ask people about their gender identity, the gender with which a person most identifies currently (the term "gender" alone can be non-specific, and it can also refer to gender expression or gender attribution). Gender identity is not sex-based or determined solely by sex assigned at birth.

Our approach to collecting gender identity information is agnostic about whether an individual is cis- or transgender. For example, a user can select the “woman” option if a cis-gender woman or a transgender woman; in that way, the options are inclusive. Importantly, if we were to ask individuals to specify whether they are cis-gender or transgender, we would necessarily be asking people to disclose sex assigned at birth as well (e.g., if an individual identifies as being a cis-gender woman, then the individual has necessarily disclosed sex assigned at birth as female). We understand that we won’t be able to capture the granularity of cis- and transgender for women and men, but we don’t believe that distinction is necessary to our current efforts to promote greater gender inclusion.

One construct for ethnicity in a global context is descent-based identity, the most relatable has to do with what individuals consider to be their “origins” or “ancestry.” Our schema invites you to self-report your ethnicity in terms of geographic ancestry, i.e., geographic-based ethnic origins. The options presented are regional, following the UN geoscheme; diasporic groups based on religion, language, or culture, are not offered as options. Given the fluidity of human migration, it isn’t unusual for individuals to have roots in multiple regions of the globe, thus you can select multiple options that resonate with you from the list of options provided.

We are asking about your earliest known family or ancestral origins when we say “first.” Note that you can select all options that apply. For example, if your ancestors originated from Western European but multiple recent generations of your family have been based in North America, you could indicate Western Europe and may choose to indicate North America.

You are expected to base your responses on your own understanding of your family or ancestral origins. You are not expected to undertake DNA testing, nor to use the results of such a test as your basis for answering. You also do not need to answer the same as you have on any national census survey.

Race is a social construct grounded in beliefs around physical and behavioral differences, sometimes tied to ancestry if physical appearance is associated with a particular geographic area.

The response options invite self-reporting of your racial identity, and just as with the ethnic origins question, you can select multiple options that resonate with you from the list provided. Importantly, selecting one’s racial identity as “white” should not be misconstrued with nor is indicative of white supremacy in any way.

The level of aggregation and number of options presented in each question are intended to parallel the scale of inclusion we as a publisher can practically accommodate. While the options offered are intended to be inclusive on a global scale, the examples associated with ethnic origins and race options are intended to be demonstrative rather than exhaustive. Where we felt examples were necessary, we limited the number of examples to enable respondents to review the options quickly and ensured examples were provided from different countries and regions. Our goal is for a person to see each option and associated examples and be able to decide whether the option, not necessarily any one of the specific examples, is a group with which they identify. Notwithstanding, users can also —or only— “self-describe” using the free-text field provided.

We acknowledge that the schemas may not be perfect, and we will periodically review all three data questions and options with the Joint Commitment collective and revise them, if necessary, in line with user feedback and any new research-based best practices.

The Joint Commitment diversity data collection in scholarly publishing group chose to initially focus on enabling users to self-report their data. Gender identity, ethnic origins, and race—and their intersectionality—are frequently identified as areas where research institutions and organizations fall short relative to the communities they serve. Moreover, findings in the literature show that a lack of an inclusive editorial process negatively affects the nature of research questions studied and who benefits from the outcomes of research.

There are additional dimensions that we may wish to consider in progressing towards holistic inclusion and equity for all in research. However, research informs us that we need to be cognizant of a diminishing rate of responsiveness to questions when enabling users to self-report additional, and potentially even more sensitive, personal demographic data. Thus, we are taking a phased approach and collecting this data is an important first step.