Technology has immense potential in reducing bias and improving diversity in peer review – An interview with Randy Townsend

‍

Randy Townsend is a prominent voice in scholarly publishing, with over two decades of experience driving strategic initiatives, expanding journal portfolios, and leading peer review operations. With a foundational career at the American Geophysical Union and later at PLOS, Randy has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to upholding high ethical standards, guiding policy implementation, and overseeing misconduct and ethical considerations within scientific publishing. Currently, Randy serves as the Director of Engagement at Origin Editorial, holds the role of Editor in Chief for the Journal of Ethics in Publishing, and is an Adjunct Professor in the MPS Publishing Program at The George Washington University.

‍

Beyond his professional roles, Randy actively contributes to the scholarly community. He co-chaired DEI initiatives on the AM&P Network’s Executive Advisory Board, chaired the Council of Science Editors’ Webinar Subcommittee, and has served as the President of the Society of Scholarly Publishing (SSP). A committed advocate for advancing knowledge, ethics, and inclusivity in publishing, Randy is not only a leader but a visionary in the field.

‍

I had the pleasure of interacting closely with Randy during the 2023 edition of Publisherspeak US*, where he chaired an insightful session on Diversity in Authorship and Editorial Processes. This interview is an extension of our conversations during Publisherspeak US 2023.

Diversity progress?

Over the last few years, what notable progress or changes have you observed in the publishing industry in terms of promoting diversity in peer review and editorial practices? Are there any areas where we still need more focus?

Randy: I’ve seen an increasing number of society and association publishers capturing and presenting the demographic data of their editorial boards, revealing compelling opportunities to expand representation, create inclusive operational cultures, and welcome new voices and diverse perspectives. Collaboration between publishers and their editorial boards in meaningful ways leverages their position to influence the way in which peer reviewers are selected. There is still a lot of progress that we can make. Some industries are inherently exclusive, so the pool of diverse candidates is severely limited. In those cases, the industry itself has to acknowledge this truth and make an honest and intentional commitment to attracting and recruiting new voices. That upstream work may need to include the colleges and universities, the respective companies themselves -areas that are traditionally beyond the reach of publishers.  
‍

In terms of peer review, diverse perspectives are fundamental in gaining a holistic understanding of research findings and help identify practical applications and broader impacts of that research which may be missed in a peer review that lacks diverse representation. While science itself should be fact-based, the individuals that are “doing” the science come to the table with biases (unconscious or not) that has the potential to introduce research spin, exclude marginalized populations, or include insensitive, exclusive or inappropriate language.

Tech & bias

With the rapid advancement of technology, we’re seeing more tools and platforms designed to streamline the peer review process. How do you see innovation and technology playing a role in reducing bias and improving diversity in peer review?

Randy: Technology has immense potential in reducing bias and improving diversity in peer review. Many of the AI tools that have been widely adopted to identify potential overlap and plagiarism could be refined to flag inappropriate or questionable language, for example. Although still in the early days, some publishers are experimenting with tools to help identify new potential reviewers or that support mentorship and co-reviewing activities. While not perfect, I’m optimistic that these tools will become increasingly sophisticated and impactful.
‍

Developments will always need diverse voices in the room to ensure equitable performance and standards are being adopted in responsible ways.

Reviewer rewards

One of the key challenges discussed in your Publisherspeak US 2023 session was how to recognize and reward peer reviewers while also increasing diversity. How do you think the industry can better incentivize reviewers while maintaining the rigor and integrity of the peer review process?

Randy: In my experience, most peer reviewers embrace the experience as a responsibility to advance the research. While honoraria are nice, there seems to be more significant value in public expressions of appreciation, like acknowledging their contributions at the end of the year or celebrating them at an annual meeting. Additionally, recognizing that volunteer peer reviewers are adding this duty to an existing list of priorities, the industry could explore creative ways to improve their overall experience, including increased engagement to understand the peer reviewer perspective, flexible deadlines, the integration of co-reviewers and junior reviewers, etc.

Mentorship impact

In 2023, your group emphasized the importance of mentorship and training as part of the solution to enhance peer review. How do you think mentorship programs can be further leveraged to ensure a more inclusive and effective peer review ecosystem moving forward?

Randy: Peer reviewers often review for multiple journals. Training and resources, especially when looking journal to journal, are often inconsistent, non-existent, or insufficient. Mentorship creates opportunities to take a comprehensive look at what a specific peer review program aspires to achieve and develop a valuable, organized program that makes it easier for new reviewers to be effective and efficient, while producing valuable feedback that strengthens the research and improves content quality.

Future of equity

As we move toward a future where inclusivity in scholarly publishing continues to be a priority, what are some of the key innovations or strategies you believe will define the next few years in peer review? What role will diversity and equity play in shaping the future of the peer review process?

Randy: Strategies that direct the integration of artificial intelligence and policies that govern the way it’s used to improve peer review, especially from a research integrity perspective, will be fundamental. In my opinion, it will allow publishers more time to engage with their reviewers, implement plans that increase diversity and equity in their processes, nurture relationships, and honor the commitment of dedicated volunteers.

‍

*Publisherspeak US, sponsored by Kriyadocs, is an in-person, unconference-style gathering designed to foster collaboration among stakeholders in scholarly publishing. This event offers a unique platform for exchanging innovative ideas and gaining practical insights to address industry challenges.