In the world of academic publishing, what doesn’t get published often says more than what does.
In recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have taken centre stage across institutions, including science. However, while many journals have added DEI statements or launched special issues, others appear to be quietly steering the conversation in a significantly different direction. If you’re wondering whether DEI is being championed or sidelined by top journals, the answer might lie in the publishing patterns themselves.
And yes—those choices matter more than you think.
The Gatekeepers of Scientific Narrative
High-impact journals, such as Nature, Science, and The Lancet, act as gatekeepers to what is considered worthy, rigorous, and “real” science. When they prioritise publishing clinical trials, breakthrough drugs, and pandemic-related innovations (all vital, of course), DEI-oriented research sometimes gets left in the margins—or worse, labelled as “advocacy” rather than science.
Yet there are signs of a shift. For example, Nature published a strong editorial in 2021 titled “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”, acknowledging the role of systemic racism and calling for structural change within academia. Still, such statements don’t always translate into consistent editorial choices.
When DEI Is Framed as a Problem
Perhaps more alarmingly, some top journals have recently published content framing DEI efforts as barriers to ‘merit-based science.’ A widely debated example is a 2023 article in The Journal of Controversial Ideas that criticised affirmative action in faculty hiring, sparking backlash for echoing anti-DEI rhetoric.
Meanwhile, research exploring the benefits of DEI—for innovation, collaboration, and student success—often struggles to get through peer review in top-tier science journals, finding a home instead in lower-impact or niche publications.
So what gives?
The “Soft Science” Stigma
A persistent stigma still clings to disciplines like sociology, education, and public health, especially when they focus on race, gender, or equity. While top medical journals regularly publish disease prevalence studies by race, they are far less likely to publish analyses that critique the systemic inequalities causing those disparities.
A 2020 study in Health Affairs found that only 1.2% of articles from 2002 to 2018 mentioned racism explicitly—despite overwhelming evidence of its impact on health.
Who Gets Cited—and Who Gets Silenced
Citation patterns offer another clue. DEI-centred research is often under-cited even when published in top journals. A Nature Human Behaviour analysis found that work by women and scholars of colour is systematically under-represented in citation networks across disciplines. This perpetuates a cycle: lesser citation → lesser impact → reduced funding → fewer publications.
A Mirror to Institutional Values
When journals make publishing decisions, they’re not just selecting studies—they’re signalling whose voices, experiences, and knowledge systems matter. In that light, it’s not unreasonable to ask: if DEI-centred research is considered “less scientific,” whose science is being upheld?
Fortunately, some academic publishers are beginning to acknowledge the imbalance. The BMJ launched an equity strategy aimed at promoting more inclusive research practices. Journals like Health Equity and The Lancet Global Health are pushing boundaries by elevating community-based, interdisciplinary work.
The Bottom Line
DEI isn’t a distraction from science—it is science. If the academic publishing world, especially top journals, truly wants to reflect and drive progress, it must reckon with the subtle and not-so-subtle ways it filters out voices that challenge the status quo.
Whether it’s disease or DEI, what journals choose to publish shapes not only policy and funding, but the future of knowledge itself.
Also read: The Power of Data-Driven DEI: Shaping Inclusive Workplaces with Analytics
