Nature journal accused of abandoning science for social justice – The Times

Report on Diversity Initiatives in Scientific Publishing and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Controversy Surrounding Diversity Policies at Springer Nature

A recent debate has emerged concerning the diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) policies implemented by the scientific publisher Springer Nature. The controversy highlights a significant conflict between principles of academic meritocracy and initiatives aimed at promoting social equity within the scientific community. This report analyzes the arguments presented by proponents and critics of these policies, with a specific focus on their alignment with and implications for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.0 Policy Analysis in the Context of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Springer Nature’s initiatives are directly aligned with the objectives of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The publisher has defended its efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable academic environment.

• SDG 5 – Gender Equality: A 2019 pledge by Springer Nature to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers” for roles such as peer review directly addresses the goal of ensuring women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership. This was a central point of contention for Professor Anna Krylov, who questioned whether she was invited to be a peer-reviewer based on her expertise or her gender.
• SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities: The publisher’s policies aim to reduce inequalities within and among countries by promoting diverse representation. Key measures include:
  1. Citation Diversity Statements: Authors are offered the option to include a declaration pledging to cite research in a manner that is equitable in terms of racial, ethnic, gender, and geographical representation.
  2. Inclusive Perspectives: The stated goal is to engage with a “wider spectrum of relevant research from a broad range of scholars, disciplines, and perspectives.”
  3. Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Guidance from the Nature Human Behaviour journal suggests that research should not be published if it risks undermining the “dignity or rights of specific groups.”

3.0 Competing Perspectives on Scientific Integrity and SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The core of the debate centers on the potential impact of DEI policies on scientific quality, a key component of SDG 4 (Quality Education), which includes promoting research and high-quality learning outcomes.

3.1 Arguments Against Current DEI Implementation

Critics argue that these policies compromise the merit-based principles essential for scientific excellence.

• Professor Anna Krylov (University of Southern California): Accused the Nature group of abandoning its scientific mission to advance a “social justice agenda” and sacrificing “merit in favour of identity-based criteria.”
• Richard Dawkins (Evolutionary Biologist): Stated that journals are “favouring authors because of their identity group rather than the excellence and importance of their science.”
• Professor Mario Juric (University of Washington): Declined a request from Nature Astronomy to suggest reviewers from “underrepresented communities,” arguing that “mixing identity in the review process does nothing to strengthen it.”

3.2 Arguments in Support of DEI Implementation

Proponents contend that diversity is integral to, not detrimental to, achieving high-quality scientific outcomes.

• Springer Nature: Maintained that including a broad range of perspectives creates a “more informed foundation for scholarly work.”
• UK Research and Innovation (2022 Report): Concluded that ensuring studies are not overwhelmingly produced by a single demographic is “essential to achieving high quality scientific outputs” and ensuring findings are relevant to diverse communities.
• Dr. Lynne Prince (University of Sheffield): Asserted that boosting the visibility of underrepresented groups does not damage academic rigor, as these individuals are academically valuable but have been less visible for systemic reasons.

4.0 Conclusion: Implications for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

This controversy underscores the challenge of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions, as outlined in SDG 16. The debate reflects a fundamental tension in defining the principles that should govern scientific publishing. While critics advocate for a strict adherence to traditional meritocracy as the foundation of a just institution, proponents argue that a truly strong and just institution must actively implement policies to correct for systemic inequalities and ensure that scientific progress benefits all of society, thereby fulfilling the broader mission of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article directly addresses gender equality through the debate over Springer Nature’s 2019 pledge to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers.” The central critic, Anna Krylov, questions whether she was contacted for her expertise or “because of my reproductive organs,” placing gender at the forefront of the discussion on diversity in scientific publishing.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • This goal is central to the article’s theme. The discussion revolves around efforts to boost diversity and inclusion for various groups. The article explicitly mentions “citation diversity statements” that aim for equitable representation in terms of “racial, ethnic, gender and geographical representation.” It also refers to the need to boost the visibility of “underrepresented groups” and ensure research addresses the needs of “different communities,” which directly aligns with reducing inequalities.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article examines the policies and guidelines of institutions, specifically the Springer Nature publishing group and American universities. The debate focuses on whether their diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) policies are just and merit-based or a form of “social engineering.” This connects to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions, as the publisher is defending its policies as a way to “promote an inclusive environment” and create a “more informed foundation for scholarly work.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership in political, economic and public life.
   • This target is relevant as the article highlights Springer Nature’s specific policy to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers.” This action is a direct attempt to increase the participation of women in the public life of science, specifically in the high-impact roles of authoring and peer-reviewing for a leading journal.
2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • The article discusses policies aimed at including a “wider spectrum of researchers.” The “citation diversity statements” are a mechanism to promote the inclusion of research from diverse authors based on “racial, ethnic, gender and geographical representation.” The call from Lynne Prince to “increase diversity among their academic community” to avoid hearing “just one voice” also directly supports this target of promoting inclusion.
3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • The entire debate is about the nature of DEI policies. Proponents argue they are necessary to overcome “stubborn barriers to diversity and inclusion” and ensure equal opportunity. Opponents, like Anna Krylov, argue these policies are themselves discriminatory (“sacrificed merit in favour of identity-based criteria”). This directly engages with the challenge of designing and implementing policies that genuinely ensure equal opportunity.
4. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.
   • This target is reflected in the institutional actions described. Springer Nature is enforcing its DEI policies, such as asking editors to reach out to women and offering “citation diversity statements.” Conversely, the Trump administration’s demand for universities to not consider factors like “sex, ethnicity, race” in policies is another example of an institution attempting to enforce what it defines as a non-discriminatory policy. The conflict between these approaches highlights the challenge of defining and enforcing non-discriminatory policies in practice.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Implied Indicator for Target 5.5: Proportion of women in key academic roles (e.g., peer-reviewers, cited authors).
   • The article does not state a specific metric, but Springer Nature’s pledge to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers” implies that the number and proportion of women contacted and participating as peer-reviewers is a key measure of this policy’s implementation.
2. Mentioned Indicator for Target 10.2: Use of “citation diversity statements.”
   • The article explicitly mentions the use of “citation diversity statements” as a tool. The adoption rate of these statements by authors and journals, and the analysis of the diversity (racial, ethnic, gender, geographical) within the citations themselves, serve as direct indicators of efforts to promote inclusion in scholarly work.
3. Implied Indicator for Target 16.b: Existence and implementation of institutional DEI policies.
   • The article points to several concrete policies that can be tracked as indicators. These include:
     • Springer Nature’s 2019 pledge “to take action to improve diversity and inclusion.”
     • The 2022 guidance from the Nature Human Behaviour journal regarding the potential impact of research on specific groups.
     • The request by Nature Astronomy editors for reviewers from “underrepresented communities.”

     The existence, content, and enforcement of these institutional guidelines are measurable indicators of action towards this target.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thetimes.com