Deliverable D4.6 – Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB) in scholarly communication - working with communities to develop resources for multilingualism, gender equity and accessible and inclusive websites
Creators: name: Bowker, Lynne
name: Pölönen, Janne
name: Laakso, Mikael
name: Redhead, Claire
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: DIAMAS toolkits and guidelines
Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB)
EDIB
multilingualism
gender equity
Diamond Open Access Standard
DOAS
Diamond Open Access
European Research Area
IPSP Guidelines
Institutional Publishing Service Provider
IPSP
institutional publishing
Diamond OA scholarly publishing
schorlarly communication
Institutional Publisher
Service Provider
accessible website
inclusive website

description: This report describes the project results, additional literature review, and collaborativeprocess to develop the DIAMAS toolkits and guidelines related to Equity, Diversity,Inclusion and Belonging (EDIB). The focus of this report is on the topics of multilingualism,gender equity, and accessible and inclusive websites as key dimensions of EDIB, which isthe seventh core component of the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS) (Consortium of theDIAMAS project, 2024). The report builds on the work summarized in the D3.1 IPSP BestPractices Quality evaluation criteria, best practices, and assessment systems forInstitutional Publishing Service Providers (IPSPs) (Ševkušić & Kuchma, 2023).

The main activity for T4.6 is to develop toolkits and guidelines to help IPSPs to manage andincrease the availability of multilingual content, to address language and gender biases intheir operations, and to develop more accessible and inclusive websites, content andmetadata. Rather than generating original information, the goal was to survey, analyze,curate and repackage existing work in this area. This report explains the collaborativeprocess used to identify such materials and to develop the DIAMAS toolkits and guidelinesrelated to EDIB.

The report opens by contextualizing existing disparities in scholarly publishing. Withregard to language, it has been established that using one key language for scholarlypublishing presents disadvantages for individuals, research, and society more broadly.Individuals may need to invest more time and money and face higher rejection rates.Privileging one language also privileges one social, cultural and economic perspective andknowledge system, and it hampers uptake of findings by local actors. In terms of genderdisparities, men are cited more often, are better represented in key positions, and areoverrepresented in research studies. As regards accessible and inclusive websites,content and metadata, inequities arise when designers do not consider aspects such asalt-text, captions, adjustable font/size/colour, or plain or inclusive language. Finally, whileit is convenient to study dimensions independently, they may intersect, meaning that aperson who is marginalized along one dimension may also be marginalized along others,with cumulative effects.

EDIB issues are sensitive and complex, and it can be intimidating for IPSPs to figure outhow to proceed. To develop the toolsuites and guidelines, two main approaches were used.First, the existing DIAMAS project documentation was studied, including D2.3 InstitutionalPublishing in the ERA: results from the DIAMAS survey (Armengou et al., 2023) and D3.3                                    Report on the gap analysis results (Brun et al., 2023). These DIAMAS project reports werestudied to determine the state of the field with regard to barriers, concerns, gaps, andprogress to date. In addition, a large-scale literature review was undertaken, whichincluded not only academic literature but also grey literature (e.g., policies, popularizedworks, professional magazines). Nearly 600 items were collected, organized and stored in ashared Zotero library for analysis.

EDIB is a cross-cutting issue in scholarly publishing. Therefore, while EDIB is one of theseven core components of the DOAS, some aspects may touch the other six componentstoo. For this reason, the results of the analysis are structured around all seven of the corecomponents of the DOAS. Key findings include the following:

1) Funding: Limited and unstable financial resources pose a challenge for meetingaccessibility standards and enriching metadata. To reduce costs related to translation andediting, the use of free AI-based translation technologies, as well as collaborativeplatforms where scholars can exchange linguistic services, are being actively explored.Training (e.g., in unconscious bias, AI literacy) is one area where surveyed IPSPs seepotential for collaborating to save costs.

2) Legal ownership, mission and governance: Gender equity can be seen as an aspect ofgovernance, and multiple reports show women occupying low-paying, precarious postswhile men are more likely to have senior decision-making roles. Gender equity plans canhelp, but only 25% of the IPSPs surveyed have implemented such a plan to date, and othersmentioned that guidance is needed.

3) Open Science: Some EDIB dimensions are facets of openness, and open reviews comeup frequently. Double or triple anonymization (where identities of authors, reviewers, andeditors, are unknown to one another) is a way to reduce gender bias during reviews. Fewerthan 20% of the IPSPs surveyed have implemented open reviews, but an additional 30%are considering it. It is important to consider how anonymization and openness of reviewsmight interact, and to understand different degrees of openness. Multilingual abstractsand plain language summaries offer an entry point into creating a more multilingual andaccessible scholarly publishing ecosystem.

4) Editorial management, editorial quality and research integrity: Concerns about lack ofdiversity among authors, reviewers, and editorial boards came up frequently, and differenttypes of diversity statements and monitoring efforts are ways to address this. Trainingabout unconscious bias, or pointing to existing guidelines and resources on this topic, are also recommended. Policies about reporting on sample populations in research can also help.

5) Technical service efficiency: A lack of human resources and specialized skills block theimplementation of some accessibility-related EDIB measures. It is vital to buildaccessibility into the workflow rather than dealing with it in an ad hoc way. AI-based toolscan support some tasks, such as creating multilingual or enriched metadata, but humanexpertise remains vital.

6) Visibility, communication, marketing, and impact: Discoverability is tied to language.Impact metrics are hotly debated among IPSPs, who may have concerns that displayingimpact metrics for publications in languages other than English could create a negativereinforcement loop (e.g. if these metrics are lower than comparable English-languagepublications, scholars may not publish there). Citation-based metrics also haveimplications since publications in languages other than English tend to be cited less often,and policies requiring citation diversity statements, combined with AI-based translationtechnologies, may help.

7) EDIB: The landscape survey and gap analysis reveal that implementing EDIB is far fromstandard practice and there is much variation across IPSPs. Additional EDIB points raisedinclude the need for clear guidelines about multilingual publication options, about usinginclusive language and about preparing appropriate peer feedback (i.e., separating contentissues from language issues). Relaxing word limits (e.g., for abstracts) could allow authorsto write in a more accessible way.

Several practical implications, lessons learned, and future possibilities emerged:



EDIB is complex, but interim measures and stepped approaches can get us started.

Four main types of gaps exist and can hinder EDIB implementation, including socialgaps (different practices), moral gaps (different values), interpretive gaps (differentunderstandings), and practical gaps (different capacities/resources for implementation).

Identify priorities and try to accomplish some of the more easily achievable targets tobegin.

Technology can play a role, but it must be supported by meaningful policies.

Accessibility legislation differs between countries and regions, so be aware of localrequirements.

Compliance (for accessibility) is not a one-off issue but requires ongoingcommitment.         

Take a holistic view because fixing one problem could risk introducing another.

Remember the project scope, but be open to learning from related areas.


To engage the community, two webinars were held and surveys were developed. Inaddition, a blog post was published on the LSE impact blog, and all activities were sharedwidely on social media. The team also participated in a mutual learning exercise withOPERAS and OABN. Feedback on the DIAMAS toolkits and guidelines was thenincorporated into revised versions of these resources.
description: Deliverable under the review of the European Commission.