A now-deleted essay in Wileys Angewandte Chemie arguing that diversity actually harms organic synthesis research has sparked indignation and outrage among chemists. Sixteen of the journals 44 international advisory board members have now resigned and the community has been left questioning how the manuscript was peer reviewed and then published in one of the highest profile chemistry journals.

When I think about the efforts to which underrepresented groups and young people go to try to get a publication in Angewandte and then something of this incredibly low quality is reviewed and accepted this is the definition of privilege, says Cathleen Crudden from Queens University in Canada, and the first board member to resign.

This kind of behaviour has been tolerated far too long

Cathleen Crudden, Queens University

Brock University chemist Tom Hudlicks piece was published on Thursday 4 June, as a reflection on Dieter Seebachs 1990 review Organic synthesis Where now?. Hudlick looks at eight factors that influence chemistry using a figure reproduced from his 2007 book The Way of Synthesis, published by Wiley. It purports to show that certain factors such as information technology can be either positive or negative, while others like diversity only exert a negative influence on the field.

Hudlick laments that diversity training has influenced hiring practices to the point where the candidates inclusion in one of the preferred social groups may override his or her qualifications. He also claims that efforts to increase womens participation in science like Gordon Research Conferences power hour diminishes the contributions by men. Hudlick also asserts that skills transfer can only occur successfully if there is an unconditional submission of the apprentice to his/her master.

This caught the attention of University of Nottingham, UK, chemist Matt Cliffe, who on Friday tweeted at Angewandte Chemie: Im sorry, your RSS feed appears to be broken again. This anti-diversity screed appears to be from thirty years ago.

Hundreds of chemists replied to Cliffes post, expressing outrage over the scientifically unfounded and morally questionable claims. Richmond Sarpongs team at the University of California, Berkeley, US, called the essay abhorrent, while Donna Blackmond and Phil Baran at Scripps in the US said it was egregious. The sections in question are pure opinion uncontaminated by expertise, Andrew Bissette, senior editor at Nature journal Communications Chemistry, pointed out.

The Chinese Chemical Society responded to a section on literature integrity, calling it slander. Hudlick alleged that publishing pressures on Chinese academics mean it is not surprising that fraud and improper publication protocols are common.

Hudlick declined to comment.

Most chemists were unsurprised by the sentiments expressed in the essay. It is very important that our community understands how toxic attitudes have shaped (and now we see continue to shape) the demographics of our field, wrote Carolyn Bertozzi from Stanford University, US.

Some in our community still hold attitudes that are outdated, offensive and discriminatory

Alliance of six chemical societies

We spend an awful lot of time talking about unconscious bias in the academic world, but it makes us forget that there is perfectly conscious bias going on as well, which this is a very clear example of, agrees Tom Welton from Imperial College London, UK.

Some in our community still hold attitudes that are outdated, offensive and discriminatory, said a statement signed by six chemical societies, including the Royal Society of Chemistry and the German Chemical Society. We will not stand for this. Diversity and equality are fantastic strengths in workplaces, in culture and in wider society. This is not only demonstrated by overwhelming evidence from decades of research, but we also hold it is morally the only acceptable position.

What shocked the community most was the essays publication in a prestigious journal. Welton questions what the reviewers were asked to do and how they were selected in the first place. You would have to positively avoid reviewers who would not look at that article and say: Theres a problem with this, he says.

The journal promptly deleted the manuscript on Friday afternoon, stating that it wasnt the final version and is pending further editing and final review. Something went very wrong here and were committed to do[ing] better. The essay was marked as accepted article, meaning it was awaiting editing, proofing and formal publication, but had been accepted after peer review.

We are deeply sorry and know we have failed the community that puts their trust in us

Neville Compton, Angewandte Chemie

We are deeply sorry and know we have failed the community that puts their trust in us, said Neville Compton, Angewandte Chemies editor-in-chief, in a statement later on Friday. In a joint statement released on Monday, Annette Beck-Sickinger, chair of Angewandte Chemies editorial board, and German Chemical Society president Peter Schreiner confirmed that two editors had been suspended and the essays two international referees removed from the journals reviewer pool. A full investigation of the case has been initiated, they wrote.

Many of the journals international advisory board members felt further action needed to be taken. After I read through the article, I just didnt think there was any way I could remain on the board, says Crudden. She was the first to resign on Friday afternoon. I have had other issues brought to my attention in the Canadian context of bias in publishing at Angewandte, Crudden adds. When I got involved in the discussion, nothing really happened. I didnt feel that the issue of bias was taken seriously.

On Monday, 15 other board members a third of the entire board, including three Nobel laureates followed suit. We believe the disturbing act of Angewandte Chemie accepting and publishing an essay that promotes racist and sexist views points to a larger problem wherein systems in the journals publishing practices have suppressed ethnic and gender diversity, they wrote in a joint statement.

Whether the essays publication will have any consequences for Hudlick professional standing remains to be seen. Do I wish we lived in a world where actually his employer would at least look and take action? I do, says Welton. But I dont think we yet live in that world. In a statement, Brock University distanced itself from Hudlicks views, but didnt state that any action would be taken.

The time for boilerplate statements is done, says Crudden. We need to tell the community what is going to happen. This kind of behaviour has been tolerated far too long.

Correction: The publication date of the essay was updated 10 June 2020

Visit link:
Angewandte essay calling diversity in chemistry harmful decried as 'abhorrent' and 'egregious' - Chemistry World