The following decision process was used to determine author gender: (1) Each author was searched in Google. (2). Based on their online profiles, reviewers made a determination on gender based on stated pronouns. In the absence of pronouns, reviewers based their decision on their own personal knowledge and/or consultation with others on the author team who may have known an author personally. (3). If no determination could be made, gender was entered as “undetermined.” For authors that could not be located online, gender was entered as “not found.” We recognize that the method of determining gender is imprecise and may underrepresent individuals who identify as non-binary (linking to issues highlighted in the discussion). We recognize that gender exists on a spectrum and to the best extent of our ability, categorized gender based on publicly available information from stated pronouns, personal web pages, social media accounts, and personal communications. Our aim with this study is to highlight gender representation issues in coral reef science, not to provide a precise tabulation of gender composition. Thus, the gender categories we code for are a heuristic estimate of gender in the field.

In this analysis, we use institutional affiliation as a proxy for geographic diversity and as a way to understand national and international collaboration in the study of coral reefs. We recognize that individuals who may identify ethnically, racially, and/or in terms of nationality may be affiliated with institutions that are in other countries/regions, thus, this is a heuristic estimate of diversity. We examined how often authors were involved in national vs. international collaborations, how often “in-house” research occurs in different countries (national authors leading/contributing to studies in that country), and how often authors from different regions did research in other regions.

Throughout this study, we aim to examine geographic representation of authors—particularly taking into account the impact of historical legacies and social factors (e.g., colonialism, capitalist markets and expansion, and geopolitical relations) on the evolution of scientific disciplines, research infrastructure, and scientific collaboration. Comparing patterns between countries who have benefitted from past history and current conditions and those who have not, can shed light on how far coral reef science has progressed in terms of improving diversity, equity, and inclusion. In order to make these types of comparisons, we needed to categorize and label sets of nations—which in itself, raises its own issues for inclusion and representation. Historically, the way in which nations were categorized was based on economic characteristics—such as income and gross domestic product—which has been widely denounced as an out-of-date and one-dimensional metric that does not accurately nor fairly reflect nations. Terminology revolved around developed vs. developing vs. underdeveloped nations, Third World vs. First World, and Global North vs. Global South. All of these groupings have been debated over the years and many have fallen out of use as development actors increasingly recognize and acknowledge the problematic nature of these often externally assigned labels.

Within these analyses, we opted to grouped nations by their OECD membership (as of 2021) as a way to characterize national economies, as opposed to externally defined income groups or development index which are grounded in problematic and monolithic metrics and contexts (Fantom et al., 2016). While self-selected, OECD members generally have high income economies and high human development index, representing nations that have historically held greater resources for scientific research. Many OECD members have tropical reefs within their waters (incl. territories) (e.g., Australia, Colombia, France, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States). While OECD membership is not perfect, it is generally a self-selected process where countries choose to apply for membership and thus, is to a degree, a more inclusive process for countries to self-identify. We used 2021 OECD membership to categorize countries, and categorized territories, protectorates, and collectivities of OECD countries as OECD (e.g., French Polynesia, as an overseas collectivity of France).

However, there are still issues that arise when grappling with geopolitical labels (e.g., Latin America, East Asia and the Pacific) that are useful for describing groups of countries but often reflect Western-driven groupings. We adopted the World Bank region categories to examine authorship patterns for this paper, however, we also want to recognize that there are standing issues with these categorizations and they should not be taken as a standard of practice.

We examined author contributions by calculating the proportion of publication output contributed by each identified author (gender and geography) in a given article. For example, if a paper had nine authors, of which eight authors identified to gender category, each identified author was assigned an equal share of authorship (an eighth). These fractions were then aggregated by gender and geographic affiliation to calculate author contributions. Summary statistics were calculated in R and the data cleaning and analysis scripts are available on github.¹

We used descriptive network analysis to examine patterns in co-authorship between authors affiliated with OECD vs. non-OECD nations over time. We created undirected graphs (parallel edges) of co-authorship for each year in our analysis using the igraph package (Csardi and Nepusz, 2006) in R. Each node represents a unique combination of author and affiliation, while the edges represent connections to co-authors. Authors who had multiple affiliations across different countries listed on a single article were reduced to one affiliation (prioritizing affiliations in non-OECD countries if they had affiliations in both). 7.88% of the total author pool had more than one affiliation listed on a paper (322 authors across 329 articles), with 31% of those having an affiliation in both OECD and non-OECD nations (100 authors). We assigned affiliations to OECD nations using the 2021 membership regardless of year of publication. Our designation scheme was balanced, to a degree between OECD vs. non-OECD assignments. We qualitatively describe patterns of collaboration between authors affiliated with institutions in OECD vs. non-OECD nations over time.

We recovered 1,677 articles authored by 4,485 unique authors with geographic affiliations spanning 95 countries; authors affiliated with institutions in the United States (n = 1,625, ∼36%), Australia (n = 921, ∼21%), the United Kingdom (n = 257, ∼6%), France (n = 184, ∼4%), Germany (n = 165, ∼4%), Japan (n = 163, ∼4%), Canada (n = 146, ∼3%), and Brazil (n = 137, ∼3%) accounted for > 70% (n = 3,598) of authors. Institutional affiliations in the United States and Australia make up over half the dataset and had the largest total contribution to published articles (n = ∼553 and ∼541 articles, respectively), thus these two countries are separated out from the rest of their regional group in subsequent analysis for improved clarity. Of the next top 20 contributing nations to coral reef science publication, only five were non-OECD (Brazil, Indonesia, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia) (Supplementary Figure 1). Over 16 years (2003–2018), the contribution of authors per country to published articles has been variable, with some countries increasing steadily (e.g., Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States) and others have fluctuated (e.g., Indonesia, Mexico, Panama, Panama, Netherlands) (Supplementary Figure 1). We were able to associate gender with ∼96% of authors and were unable to locate information for 46 authors. While no authors who explicitly identified as non-binary were identified, we recognize that not all non-binary authors or authors with other gender identities may identify publicly (see Supplementary Methods).

The majority of articles described field-based studies (n = 1,068) and generally described research conducted in or concerning the Central Indo-Pacific (n = 690 articles) and the Tropical Atlantic (e.g., Caribbean) (n = 332). In comparison, there were considerably fewer studies in the Eastern (n = 200) and Western (n = 147) Indo-Pacific (Supplementary Figure 2). Over the 16 year time series, overall authorship contribution from authors affiliated with institutions in non-OECD countries grew from ∼4 to ∼13% (Figure 1). In general, authors across all types of studies were more likely to affiliate with institutions in OECD nations (∼90% proportion of authorship). Of the articles examined, 1,329 (∼80%) articles were entirely composed of all OECD-affiliated authors, while 64 articles (∼4%) had entirely non-OECD affiliated author teams. Generally, in authorship order the first author represents the researcher who led the work while the last author represents the “senior” author, often the head of a lab/research group. We find that representation of non-OECD affiliated authors have remained low over the study period across first and last authors, reflecting trends in overall authorship contribution (∼12% first authors, 8% last authors, and 11% of authors overall contributing to papers in 2018).

Considering author affiliations compiled into World Bank regions (World Bank, 2021), we found that scientists based in Australia, Europe, and North America typically work across multiple regions, including East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean, while researchers from other regions tend to publish work related to the region of their affiliation (Figure 2). For example, research conducted in reefs in East Asia and the Pacific are dominated by authors based in Australia, Europe, and the United States (∼75% of author contributions) with around 25% contribution from authors affiliated within the region. In contrast, while there is a similar volume of research conducted in Australia, the majority of contributing authors are affiliated with Australian institutions, with just ∼5% from East Asia and the Pacific.

In general, author teams were more likely to be composed of entirely in-country (n = 649 articles, 42% of total articles) or entirely out-of-country researchers (n = 374 articles, 24% of total articles). Only a third of articles (n = 484) examined had mixed teams of local authors publishing with authors from outside the country where the fieldwork was conducted. Of the mixed collaboration teams that conducted research in non-OECD nations (n = 373 articles), on average, 50% of the authors had an affiliation within the country of study. Research in OECD nations was predominantly conducted by in-country authors (e.g., 63% of total studies in OECD nations), while research in non-OECD nations was predominantly conducted by authors from outside of those nations (68%) (Figure 3). For example, researchers affiliated with American institutions made up 88% of authorship contributions to research conducted on U.S. coral reefs (n = 226 articles). Conversely, for research conducted in Indonesia (n = 66 articles), a region with significantly greater reef area, only 25% of authorship contribution was from researchers affiliated with Indonesian institutions. While contribution to published research conducted in non-OECD nations by in-country scientists increased over our timeframe (from ∼16% of total contribution in 2003 to ∼41% in 2018), this still remains low compared to coral reef studies that occur in OECD nations.

Using network analyses, we considered how scientists are collaborating across OECD and non-OECD nations over the 16 year study period (Figure 4). The majority of articles published in 2018, the last year for which contributions were assessed, were authored by a large but rather geographically disconnected group of individuals who had significant collaborations within their group, but few connections outside of their group. Interestingly, authors outside of the group formed individual groups on their own; however, the network plot (Figure 4) suggests these groups display more inter-group connections potentially forged by individuals working across disciplines or countries who bridged collaborations. Disaggregating by region, we see that most of the co-author teams in 2018 are composed of individuals affiliated with institutions in OECD nations, while groups on the periphery include more researchers affiliated with institutions in non-OECD nations. In comparison with 2003, the relative proportion of authors from institutions in non-OECD nations has increased and there are some more prolific publishers within the center of the network; however, far more are on the periphery (Figure 4).

Over the 16 year time series, gender balance of authors in coral reef science (whose gender identity could be inferred) increased from ∼18 to ∼33% contribution by female authors from 2003 to 2018 (Figure 5), fluctuating between 25 and 35%. In general, authors across all types of studies were more likely to be men (∼70–80% proportion of authorship). Of the articles examined, 525 (∼31%) articles were composed of entirely male authors, while 80 articles (∼5%) had entirely female authors. In terms of authorship order, we find that while gender representation may appear to be moving closer toward an equal balance in first authors (36% women first authors overall and 40% in 2018), last authors remain dominated by men (77% overall and 80% in 2018) (Figure 5).

The pattern of gender representation was similar across the most well-represented geographies of affiliation. In the United States and Australia, women authors (33 and 29% of affiliated authors, respectively) represented a pattern that is reflected across the majority of the next top 20 contributing nations (Supplementary Figure 3). Some countries (e.g., Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia) were mostly represented by men (but overall low representation in terms of affiliated author geography). In terms of author position, in the United States of America and Australia there were more women first authors (37%, 36%) than last authors (25.7%, 20%). Examining trends in gender representation in the other top producing nations, we observe that the patterns are much more varied (Supplementary Figure 3). For OECD nations, only Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom had more than 25% women as last authors on papers to which their authors contributed. For top contributing non-OECD nations, Brazil and Philippines had near equal representation of men and women as first authors. However, for these nations, authors who were women were barely represented, if at all, as last authors (Supplementary Figure 3).

Our results suggest that ongoing efforts to address the geographic and gender disparity that exists in coral reef research are not going far enough or moving fast enough. The science community needs to address deeply embedded institutional and cultural issues and commit to increased intentional action and accountability to accelerate positive tangible change. Here, we make three broad recommendations for the science community to proactively address the issues identified in this paper: (1) foster increased geographic representation in authorship and increase representation of authors from countries in which research is undertaken (Chambers et al., 2021); (2) improve gender representation in research teams and leadership (Fox et al., 2018; Potvin et al., 2018); and (3) directly address historical and institutional harm, while cultivating a culture of equity, diversity, inclusion, and justice in research institutions through measurable and concrete actions (Kalev and Dobbin, 2016).

First, fostering increased geographic representation in authorship requires fundamental changes to both research approaches and funding structures. Research that incentivizes engagement with in-country scientists, practitioners, and other actors through collaborative or knowledge co-production research processes should be emphasized as they “complement one another” and result in the “potential to effectively use all relevant knowledge” (Abram et al., 2019). Thus, researchers need to invest in creating meaningful and long-term partnerships with local organizations (including universities, government and non-government organizations, community groups) and engage local collaborators as co-designers, co-implementers, and co-authors of research outputs (Baker et al., 2019; Chin et al., 2019). The latter in these partnerships will require research leaders and institutions to tailor their engagement strategies for obtaining feedback and input of the co-authors involved. Scientific journals also have a critical role to play in ensuring representation of in-country scientists and other actors as authors and taking actions such as making language editing and/or translation more readily available, incorporating diverse co-authorship as a consideration in peer-review, and more accessible publication cost. Additionally, fostering geographic diversity in authorship and building locally led research will require a fundamental shift in how research funding is shared and allocated.

To share the rewards and build local capacity, we recommend that funding agencies and organizations: (a) require that research projects driven by foreign research teams involve equitable sharing of funding with local research groups (Hind et al., 2015); (b) increase allocations of funding directly to local researchers in non-OECD nations to carry out their own projects (Hind et al., 2015); (c) recognize and value research efforts that weave together different forms of knowledge (Alexander et al., 2011; Mackey and Claudie, 2015); (d) include local experts in co-design of research (Stefanoudis et al., 2021); and (e) allocate funding for mentorship/training to address the significant education gap between non-OECD and OECD nations, or language barriers (Hind et al., 2015; Chin et al., 2019).

Second, concerted effort is needed to reduce gender disparities, and underrepresentation in research teams, co-author lists, and leadership positions. Bias toward women (i.e., perceived expertise or competencies) can seriously undermine gender representation in research and publication (Committee on Increasing the Number of Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM), 2020). Thus, the underlying factors that shape the composition of research groups and authorship is something that individual researchers and teams must continually reflect on and address. For example, the limited number of women last authors on papers suggests that they continue to be underrepresented in the academy and that granting agencies and research funders should pay greater attention to and be more accountable in recruiting, retaining, and funding women-led research projects and groups (Hewlett et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2017; Fox et al., 2018). There are direct actions to address publication challenges (e.g., more training and accountability of editors, double-blind peer-review, more diverse editor groups, inclusive gender practices such as additional fields in gender drop down (Budden et al., 2008; Fox et al., 2018; Graves et al., 2019). However, addressing underlying issues will require broader and more systemic efforts—for example, shifting workplace and work culture to be more supportive of non-work responsibilities, from family care to managing the household; and improving transparency and fairness of hiring and evaluation practices. Also important to recognize that while non-binary authors and those with other gender identities (transgender men and women) face many of the same challenges, they are often compounded.

Neocolonial (or globalization Boisselle, 2016) research practices (Table 1), lack of diversity, and toxic research cultures (e.g., condescension, bullying, and harassment; Howe-Walsh and Turnbull, 2014) are deeply ingrained and persistent in the sciences. Addressing these issues requires a long term vision and multi-pronged approach, which could start by establishing compensated DEI committees or working groups to identify specific areas for improvement and accountability,² institutionalizing training by professionals in DEI for graduate students, postdocs, and faculty, and requiring up-to-date training in key ingredients of collaborative practices, knowledge co-production, anti-racism initiatives (Schell et al., 2020), and decolonial feminist research methods (Brito-Millán et al., 2019). Also key are: a code of conduct that explicitly states standards, confidential reporting, and repercussions; the inclusion of DEI work and mentorship metrics in hiring and tenure; and a commitment to increasing and maintaining diverse hires at all institutional levels. Together, these kinds of initiatives would improve institutional understanding and accountability of DEI issues (including the role of unconscious biases) and encourage personal introspection and goal setting around inclusion. Lack of accountability allows toxic behavior to persist which leads to many women and other underrepresented groups leaving research and academia (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull, 2014). Given the significant power that institutional actors (universities, research institutes, journal editorial boards, field stations, funding agencies) and science leaders hold in the science community, they must establish a precedent to make diversity inclusiveness policies explicit and develop clear action plans, targets, and monitoring and evaluation toward their implementation (Kalev and Dobbin, 2016).

It is currently 2021, and the lack of representation in coral reef science continues to persists with the pace of change too slow to achieve balanced representation anytime soon. We (the authors) realize that fixing the problem goes beyond the scientific community given these trends are reflective of much broader-scale social processes, norms, and histories (i.e., patriarchy, colonization, uneven geographical development). However, the science community—both individually and institutionally—has a significant role to play in bringing about real social change, from shifting the culture in funding, to increasing engagement of international researchers with local experts. And while authorship is just one symptom of systemic issues in research, advocating for more inclusive research practices can contribute toward progress for broader DEI goals. Individuals and institutions need to collectively take action and not rely so heavily on underrepresented groups who disproportionately allocate time and resources to addressing these systemic issues (Jimenez et al., 2019). Global challenges are big for coral reefs, but with the right set of actions, we can work toward more innovative, inclusive, science-based solutions.