Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.

Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.

The Peer Review System: A Journal Editor's 30-Year Perspective.

The peer review system has become the standard by which scientific articles are refereed. Unfortunately, even from its beginnings in the mid-1800s it has been fraught with difficulties. Potential reviewers are volunteers who may be inundated with requests to review yet these reviews take considerable time and effort. There is little motivation to complete a review causing significant delays in the publication process. There may be biases unintentionally built into the system between reviewers, authors, editors, and journals. Attempts to overcome these biases by various blinding schemes have been met with limited success. Finally, the recent advent of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to completely upend the system, for good or bad.

Contexts of Convenience: Generalizing from Published Evaluations of School Finance Policies.

Recent attention to the causal identification of spending impacts provides improved estimates of spending outcomes in a variety of circumstances, but the estimates are substantially different across studies. Half of the variation in estimated funding impact on test scores and over three-quarters of the variation of impacts on school attainment reflect differences in the true parameters across study contexts. Unfortunately, inability to describe the circumstances underlying effective school spending impedes any attempts to generalize from the extant results to new policy situations. The evidence indicates that how funds are used is crucial to the outcomes, but such factors as targeting of funds or court interventions fail to explain the existing pattern of results.