Cargando…

A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities

The field of plant science has grown dramatically in the past two decades, but global disparities and systemic inequalities persist. Here, we analyzed ~300,000 papers published over the past two decades to quantify disparities across nations, genders, and taxonomy in the plant science literature. Ou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marks, Rose A., Amézquita, Erik J., Percival, Sarah, Rougon-Cardoso, Alejandra, Chibici-Revneanu, Claudia, Tebele, Shandry M., Farrant, Jill M., Chitwood, Daniel H., VanBuren, Robert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Academy of Sciences 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10013813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36853942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217564120
_version_ 1784906857912991744
author Marks, Rose A.
Amézquita, Erik J.
Percival, Sarah
Rougon-Cardoso, Alejandra
Chibici-Revneanu, Claudia
Tebele, Shandry M.
Farrant, Jill M.
Chitwood, Daniel H.
VanBuren, Robert
author_facet Marks, Rose A.
Amézquita, Erik J.
Percival, Sarah
Rougon-Cardoso, Alejandra
Chibici-Revneanu, Claudia
Tebele, Shandry M.
Farrant, Jill M.
Chitwood, Daniel H.
VanBuren, Robert
author_sort Marks, Rose A.
collection PubMed
description The field of plant science has grown dramatically in the past two decades, but global disparities and systemic inequalities persist. Here, we analyzed ~300,000 papers published over the past two decades to quantify disparities across nations, genders, and taxonomy in the plant science literature. Our analyses reveal striking geographical biases—affluent nations dominate the publishing landscape and vast areas of the globe have virtually no footprint in the literature. Authors in Northern America are cited nearly twice as many times as authors based in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, despite publishing in journals with similar impact factors. Gender imbalances are similarly stark and show remarkably little improvement over time. Some of the most affluent nations have extremely male biased publication records, despite supposed improvements in gender equality. In addition, we find that most studies focus on economically important crop and model species, and a wealth of biodiversity is underrepresented in the literature. Taken together, our analyses reveal a problematic system of publication, with persistent imbalances that poorly capture the global wealth of scientific knowledge and biological diversity. We conclude by highlighting disparities that can be addressed immediately and offer suggestions for long-term solutions to improve equity in the plant sciences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10013813
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher National Academy of Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100138132023-08-28 A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities Marks, Rose A. Amézquita, Erik J. Percival, Sarah Rougon-Cardoso, Alejandra Chibici-Revneanu, Claudia Tebele, Shandry M. Farrant, Jill M. Chitwood, Daniel H. VanBuren, Robert Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Biological Sciences The field of plant science has grown dramatically in the past two decades, but global disparities and systemic inequalities persist. Here, we analyzed ~300,000 papers published over the past two decades to quantify disparities across nations, genders, and taxonomy in the plant science literature. Our analyses reveal striking geographical biases—affluent nations dominate the publishing landscape and vast areas of the globe have virtually no footprint in the literature. Authors in Northern America are cited nearly twice as many times as authors based in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, despite publishing in journals with similar impact factors. Gender imbalances are similarly stark and show remarkably little improvement over time. Some of the most affluent nations have extremely male biased publication records, despite supposed improvements in gender equality. In addition, we find that most studies focus on economically important crop and model species, and a wealth of biodiversity is underrepresented in the literature. Taken together, our analyses reveal a problematic system of publication, with persistent imbalances that poorly capture the global wealth of scientific knowledge and biological diversity. We conclude by highlighting disparities that can be addressed immediately and offer suggestions for long-term solutions to improve equity in the plant sciences. National Academy of Sciences 2023-02-28 2023-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10013813/ /pubmed/36853942 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217564120 Text en Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Biological Sciences
Marks, Rose A.
Amézquita, Erik J.
Percival, Sarah
Rougon-Cardoso, Alejandra
Chibici-Revneanu, Claudia
Tebele, Shandry M.
Farrant, Jill M.
Chitwood, Daniel H.
VanBuren, Robert
A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
title A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
title_full A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
title_fullStr A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
title_full_unstemmed A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
title_short A critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
title_sort critical analysis of plant science literature reveals ongoing inequities
topic Biological Sciences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10013813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36853942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217564120
work_keys_str_mv AT marksrosea acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT amezquitaerikj acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT percivalsarah acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT rougoncardosoalejandra acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT chibicirevneanuclaudia acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT tebeleshandrym acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT farrantjillm acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT chitwooddanielh acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT vanburenrobert acriticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT marksrosea criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT amezquitaerikj criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT percivalsarah criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT rougoncardosoalejandra criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT chibicirevneanuclaudia criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT tebeleshandrym criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT farrantjillm criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT chitwooddanielh criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities
AT vanburenrobert criticalanalysisofplantscienceliteraturerevealsongoinginequities