Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A journal publishes its editorial-board geographic composition annually and commits to a representation target.
- Is an instance
An editor-in-chief recruits from previously under-represented regions over a multi-year period.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
An editorial board composed entirely of researchers from a single country with no diversification plan.
- Not an instance
Listing geographic diversity as a value while making no recruitment changes.
Editorial commentary
Multiple studies have documented that editorial boards of major international journals are dominated by editors from a handful of Northern countries, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and other Western European nations. This concentration shapes what counts as relevant research, which manuscripts get reviewed seriously, and which methods and findings are prioritised.
Why concentration is self-reinforcing
Espin et al.’s 2017 PLOS Biology study documenting a persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards, and Murray et al.’s 2018 bioRxiv work on author-reviewer homophily, point to the same underlying mechanism: editors tend to recruit reviewers, and journals tend to attract submissions, from within their own existing professional networks. Because those networks are already geographically concentrated, the pattern reproduces itself across editorial cycles unless a journal deliberately intervenes — it is not simply a historical artefact that will correct on its own.
What a deliberate intervention looks like
Knowledge-equity reform asks journals and funders to publish geographic-diversity statistics for editorial boards and reviewer pools on a recurring basis, set explicit representation targets rather than aspirational statements, and recruit editors and reviewers actively across under-represented regions over a multi-year horizon rather than treating one high-profile appointment as sufficient. A board that states diversity as a value but shows no change in its published composition year over year is the documented failure pattern this reform explicitly targets.
Where this connects
See equitable peer review for the reviewer-level practices this pairs with, and bibliodiversity for the wider publishing-ecosystem principle this sits under.
References
- Espin J et al. ‘A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards’ PLOS Biology 2017. Murray D et al. ‘Author-reviewer homophily in peer review’ bioRxiv 2018.
Also known as
Editorial geographic diversity
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Geographic Editorial Diversity"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/geographic-editorial-diversity" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/geographic-editorial-diversity",
"name": "Geographic Editorial Diversity",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/geographic-editorial-diversity",
"description": "The presence on a journal's editorial board, reviewer pool and authorship of researchers from a wide range of countries, regions and institutional types, especially including the Global South.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/knowledge-equity#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/geographic-editorial-diversity",
"sameAs": [
"Editorial geographic diversity"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"author": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
},
"datePublished": "2026-05-21T02:22:56",
"dateModified": "2026-08-23T05:14:38",
"inLanguage": "en-GB",
"isAccessibleForFree": true
}
