A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology.

The scholars comprising journal editorial boards play a critical role in defining the trajectory of knowledge in their field. Nevertheless, studies of editorial board composition remain rare, especially those focusing on journals publishing research in the increasingly globalized fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Using metrics for quantifying the diversity of ecological communities, we quantified international representation on the 1985-2014 editorial boards of 24 environmental biology journals. Over the course of 3 decades, there were 3,827 unique scientists based in 70 countries who served as editors. The size of the editorial community increased over time-the number of editors serving in 2014 was 4-fold greater than in 1985-as did the number of countries in which editors were based. Nevertheless, editors based outside the "Global North" (the group of economically developed countries with high per capita gross domestic product [GDP] that collectively concentrate most global wealth) were extremely rare. Furthermore, 67.18% of all editors were based in either the United States or the United Kingdom. Consequently, geographic diversity-already low in 1985-remained unchanged through 2014. We argue that this limited geographic diversity can detrimentally affect the creativity of scholarship published in journals, the progress and direction of research, the composition of the STEM workforce, and the development of science in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia (i.e., the "Global South").

"We'll Get to You When We Get to You": Exploring Potential Contributions of Health Care Staff Behaviors to Patient Perceptions of Discrimination and Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: We qualitatively assessed patients' perceptions of discrimination and patient satisfaction in the health care setting specific to interactions with nonphysician health care staff. METHODS: We conducted 12 focus-group interviews with African American and European American participants, stratified by race and gender, from June to November 2008. We used a topic guide to facilitate discussion and identify factors contributing to perceived discrimination and analyzed transcripts for relevant themes using a codebook. RESULTS: We enrolled 92 participants: 55 African Americans and 37 European Americans, all of whom reported perceived discrimination and lower patient satisfaction as a result of interactions with nonphysician health care staff. Perceived discrimination was associated with 2 main characteristics: insurance or socioeconomic status and race. Both verbal and nonverbal communication style on the part of nonphysician health care staff were related to individuals' perceptions of how they were treated. CONCLUSIONS: The behaviors of nonphysician health care staff in the clinical setting can potentially contribute to patients' perceptions of discrimination and lowered patient satisfaction. Future interventions to reduce health care discrimination should include a focus on staff cultural competence and customer service skills.