Editorial: Women in biogeography and macroecology 2022
Anouschka R. Hof
Ana Filipa Filipe
Genoveva Rodríguez-Castañeda
Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas- 1Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
- 2Forest Research Centre, Associate Laboratory TERRA, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal
- 3ESS, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Setúbal, Portugal
- 4Arachnology and Entomology collections, Burke Museum, Seattle, WA, United States
- 5Centro de Estudios Ambientales y de Biodiversidad, Instituto de Investigaciones, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala
- 6Laboratory of (Bio)Diversity in the Anthropocene, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
Editorial on the Research Topic
Women in biogeography and macroecology 2022
Women continue to be significantly underrepresented in science (Ceci and Williams, 2011; Holman et al., 2018; Hughes et al., 2023; Sebastián-Tirado et al., 2023; Cheung, 2024). Long-standing biases and gender stereotypes have for generations been discouraging girls and women away from science-related fields, the so-called STEM research (i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics) (Holman et al., 2018). This situation is no different in the field of Biogeography based on a recent list of top-100 researchers (Renner and Skov, 2023). This list included 70 nominees for an International Biogeography Society award – note that there is a known significant bias towards men receiving scientific awards (Van Miegroet and Glass, 2020) – plus 30 additions to “more evenly cover researchers from different geographical origins and gender.” Although authors tried to balance gender, still 76% of the listed researchers were likely to be men, based on the first names and pictures.
Gender equality is essential to ensure sustainable development (Donders and Tararas, 2021). However, to achieve this goal, traditional mindsets must be changed, gender stereotypes must be defeated, and girls and women must be encouraged to pursue STEM careers. The long-standing gender bias affects not only access and representation in science but also the publishing process (Bancroft et al., 2022). Considerable and specific language barriers prevent non-native-English speaker female scientists from publishing (Márquez and Porras, 2020; Amano et al., 2023). Furthermore, unpredictable circumstances may disproportionally affect the productivity of women, which was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic (Staniscuaski et al., 2021; Heo et al., 2022). Additional to such difficulties, women-first authors or people from low and middle-HDI countries are more likely to be rejected at the revision or resubmission publication step (Srivastava et al., 2024). Although this may not be the case for all journals, it stresses the need to reconsider the current approaches to promote equity in the publication process (Cassia-Silva et al., 2023).
As equity concerns in science become evident, journals are adopting special publication fees for low-income countries, including Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, which offers a fee support program for which authors of institutions with insufficient funding to cover the charges can apply. To fully support female scientists from developing countries, there may, however, be a need to waive fees for those scientists.
To promote the work of women scientists, we present a collection showcasing their contributions to Biogeography and Macroecology. These studies reflect the diversity and advancement of women’s contributions to science by addressing compelling problems in the biogeography field of science. First, Diele-Viegas et al. discuss the impacts of systematic biases against underrepresented groups in STEM in their academic productivity, making the current academic productivity metric a biased index of scientific merit. They propose strategies to mitigate such biases by guaranteeing diversified evaluation committees, editorial and peer-review boards, scientific society boards, and scientific meeting convenors. Marshall et al. examine predictors of endemism hotspot zones in the Nimba Mountains in Africa through the analysis of vascular plant records. The authors found that endemism rises with precipitation and elevation but decreases with increased disturbance, underscoring the urgency of safeguarding the Nimba mountains from deforestation. Wang et al. use species distribution modelling to project the current and future distributions of 40 threatened endemic vertebrates throughout a currently protected endemism hotspot in China under land-use and climate change. They found that the protected area will not be able to effectively conserve many of these species in future, highlighting the importance of such studies to conserve species. Wrozyna et al. study the body-size variability of a salinity-tolerant ostracod species, from Early Holocene to Recent populations. Authors show that distinct body-size clusters are superimposed by two large-scale geographical patterns. Results highlighted that body-size of ostracods might be predominantly controlled by phylogeny rather than by environmental factors. The authors conclude phylogenetic relationships should be primarily considered when attempting to explain body-size variability. Bisht et al. focus on plant biodiversity of some high-altitude national parks of the Indian Himalaya, and their current anthropogenic pressures. The authors compared data on plant composition collected at disturbed and at undisturbed sites along the altitudinal gradient and concluded that anthropogenic pressures altered the soil properties but also species composition. Krokaitė et al. show that plant invasions are driven by a combination of characteristics of invasive species and the invaded environment. The authors used Impatiens parviflora as a case study and molecular techniques covering various habitats in Lithuania. The study revealed that multiple introductions of the species likely occurred and that there is a lack of genetic variation between neighbouring populations of the study species. Wu et al. provide a framework to analyse large-scale temporal patterns of biodiversity by assessing changes in the alpha, beta, and gamma freshwater fish biodiversity in a large number of lakes across Alberta (Canada) over fifty years. Initially increasing diversity trends reversed in the last decade, leading to the loss of coldwater fishes in their study system.
The “Women in biogeography and macroecology 2022” special Research Topic collected diverse studies, offering valuable insights with broad research and methodological implications. Case studies spanned various biota and geographies, enriching understanding in the field. Five of these studies covered the main current anthropogenic pressures and environmental impacts, such as climate change, biological introductions, and the efficacy of protected areas. One study covered the importance of phylogenetics in shaping body size variation. Finally, one study argued about the need to explicitly promote researcher’s diversity, equity, and inclusion in science.
The path toward achieving equity for women in terms of access, representation, and publication opportunities in Biogeography and Macroecology remains unfinished, but the contributions made by the authors in this Research Topic suggest that if you give women opportunities, they overcome hardships of biases and deliver. It is our aspiration that this Research Topic will serve as a resolute stride in that direction and that the articles included herein will serve as a catalyst for all readers and researchers with an interest in Biogeography and Macroecology- especially girls and women!
Author contributions
AH: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AF: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GR: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LD: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. AFF was supported by FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal) with Stimulus of Scientific Employment contract 2020.03872.CEECIND.
Acknowledgments
We thank all authors, reviewers, and editors for their valuable contributions to writing and improving the articles. We also thank the journal’s staff, particularly Jennifer Broderick, publishing specialist in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution Journal, for the support in publishing this Research Topic.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Amano T., Ramírez-Castañeda V., Berdejo-Espinola V., Borokini I., Chowdhury S., Golivets M., et al. (2023). The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PloS Biol. 21, e3002184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184
Bancroft S. F., Ryoo K., Miles M. (2022). Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication. Sci. Educ. 106, 1232–1248. doi: 10.1002/sce.21733
Cassia-Silva C., Rocha B. S., Liévano-Torres L. F., Sobreiro M. B., Diele-Viegas L. M. (2023). Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time? PeerJ 11, e15186. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15186
Ceci S. J., Williams W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 3157–3162. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108
Cheung G. (2024). “The complex reality: unraveling the underrepresentation of women in STEM,” in Empowering Women in STEM (Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press), 176–185.
Donders Y., Tararas K. (2021). "Mainstreaming science and human rights in UNESCO." in The Right to Science. Then and Now, edited by Porsdam H., Porsdam Mann S. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 124–139. doi: 10.1017/9781108776301
Heo S., Chan A. Y., Diaz Peralta P., Jin L., Pereira Nunes C. R., Bell M. L. (2022). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists’ productivity in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and medicine fields. Humanities Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 1–11. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01466-0
Holman L., Devi S.-F., Hauser C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PloS Biol. 16, e2004956. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956
Hughes A. C., Than K. Z., Tanalgo K. C., Agung A. P., Alexander T., Kane Y., et al. (2023). Who is publishing in ecology and evolution? the underrepresentation of women and the Global South. Front. Environ. Sci. 11, 1211211. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1211211
Márquez M. C., Porras A. M. (2020). Science communication in multiple languages is critical to its effectiveness. Front. Communication 5. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00031
Renner S. S., Skov F. (2023). Science maps for biogeography—The field’s place within the sciences and its change over the past quarter century. J. Biogeography 50, 805–815. doi: 10.1111/jbi.14575
Sebastián-Tirado A., Félix-Esbrí S., Forn C., Sanchis-Segura C. (2023). Are gender-science stereotypes barriers for women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Exploring when, how, and to whom in an experimentally-controlled setting. Front. Psychol. 14, 1219012. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219012
Srivastava D. S., Bernardino J., Marques A. T., Proença-Ferreira A., Filipe A. F., Borda-de-Água L., et al. (2024). Editors are biased too: An extension of Fox et al., (2023)’s analysis makes the case for triple-blind review. Funct. Ecol. 38, 278–283. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.14483
Staniscuaski F., Kmetzsch L., Soletti R. C., Reichert F., Zandonà E., Schwartz I. V., et al. (2021). Gender, race and parenthood impact academic productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: from survey to action. Front. Psychol. 12, 663252. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663252
Keywords: macroecology, biogeography, women researchers, publishing, bias
Citation: Hof AR, Filipe AF, Rodríguez-Castañeda G and Diele-Viegas LM (2024) Editorial: Women in biogeography and macroecology 2022. Front. Ecol. Evol. 12:1404639. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2024.1404639
Received: 21 March 2024; Accepted: 17 April 2024;
Published: 29 April 2024.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Peter Convey, British Antarctic Survey (BAS), United KingdomCopyright © 2024 Hof, Filipe, Rodríguez-Castañeda and Diele-Viegas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ana Filipa Filipe, affilipe@isa.ulisboa.pt