How we’re diversifying our editorial boards in China

Author: Aman Ganpatsingh

We’ve previously explored China’s rise as a global leader in research, and why diversifying our editorial boards is essential to advance knowledge globally. In this blog, we hear from three Springer Nature colleagues who are actively supporting editorial board members (EBMs) from China: Chongfang Wang is Journals Growth Director, Greater China; Marc Gillet is Director, Editorial Engagement for Springer Nature Group; and Arnout Jacobs is Managing Director, Greater China.

Why diversify editorial boards?

Springer Nature is committed to a more inclusive strategy that accurately reflects the diverse communities we serve. “As publishers, it has always been our role to represent the communities that we publish,” explains Arnout Jacobs. Yet our 2024 editor diversity report showed that our academic editors – the decision makers for our journals – are not fully representative of the broader research community. There is much more we need to do to address diversity to ensure a fair and unbiased publishing system.

As Arnout Jacobs describes, EBM appointments typically last for a long period, “which is good, to give stability.” But in China, where research output has grown dramatically in both volume and impact, we need to move faster than we have ever done before. Since the start of 2024, we have appointed over 3,000 new EBMs from China. By diversifying our editors, we offer better regional knowledge to support submitting authors, widen the pool of reviewers that our journals work with, and, in turn, increase our effectiveness, speed, and overall satisfaction. 

Approaches to scale up recruitment of editors in China

In the past few years, we have expanded our local presence in China, from under 200 colleagues to over 400 today, and we continue to grow. There is a particular focus on recruitment of EBMs. “The team in Nanjing are helping recruitment of new board members and support for editors and institutional partners,” explains Marc Gillett.

This local strategy addresses several specific challenges in EBM recruitment. Firstly, in identifying qualified researchers. While China produces some of the world’s best research, there is also wide variability in quality across provinces and institutions, as Arnout Jacobs explains: “When I compare it to a country like the Netherlands, which has 14 universities, all of those universities deliver a predictable quality. In China, there is a very broad range. For an editor that may be pressed for time, this may play a role in unconscious bias.” 

Identification also presents a challenge because many Chinese researchers prefer mobile platforms to institutional email, making institutional affiliation harder to verify. “China has leapfrogged e-mail so people all work from mobile apps,” explains Arnout Jacobs. “For an editor, that's a red flag.”

Cultural factors also hamper recruitment. Junior researchers may hold back over inexperience, explains Chongfang Wang: “They still believe that they need more training and more publishing before they are confident to take on a role like this.” Meanwhile more senior researchers may also hesitate, as our recent interview with Dr Qiaolei Jiang suggested, waiting for an invitation. This is why a proactive outreach strategy, including offering training and direct support, is crucial.

An institutional recruitment model

One solution that we are rolling out is an institutional model, working with universities to scale up invitations to qualified EBMs. “This is something Chinese researchers are longing for,” says Chongfang Wang. “They hope that recruitment could be more systematic.” An institutional approach addresses several challenges, from qualifying a researcher’s credentials to ensuring a more diverse pool of candidates. “By working with universities, they can guarantee the people that we appoint, and can vouch for their knowledge in certain areas,” says Arnout Jacobs.

Institutions also welcome the opportunity to take part. “They encourage their researchers to take on these editorial roles, that helps improve the international reputation of their researchers,” notes Chongfang Wang. “We've already started approaching some of the best quality institutions here in China and confirmed more than 10 institutions to work with us.”  

For Springer Nature, this approach also reduces the time-intensive process of individual research integrity checks. “We have to do quite rigorous research integrity checks to make sure EBMs are legitimate researchers,” explains Marc Gillett. “We're still doing those checks for institutions, but we've got a degree of confidence because they're coming through a recommendation.”

Offering training and support

Beyond recruitment, a major part of our strategy involves supporting editors so they can excel in their roles. We have invested significantly in new technologies, including launching 42 online research communities. “We’re bringing on board 100,000+ editors into these communities, which is going to enable us to communicate more effectively, train more effectively, provide key policy updates, and also keep our board members better informed,” explains Marc Gillett. These communities provide the dual function of enabling training and support from Springer Nature, but also peer networking. “The networking opportunities they will get with international academics is pretty significant,” adds Marc. “And the more they work with us over the first year or two, they gain a series of certifications, reports, and metrics that show what value they're adding to the journals, which they can use outside Springer Nature.” 

In the future, we will be rolling out further support for new EBMs, especially early career researchers, explains Marc Gillett. “We've been running pilots, particularly targeting early career researchers, to see how we bring on a trained or trusted reviewer. We would provide access to tools and training before they are given access to our submission systems to act as reviewers. The aim is to not only give them the confidence and the ability to report well for us, but to recognise and support them so that in the future, they can say ‘I have been a trained reviewer in this area.’” 

Preliminary pilots of this model are promising. Marc Gillett notes, “The turnaround times of most of the pilot journals have come down by 5%. The editors themselves have got a much higher satisfaction rate, from 65% in 2023 to 77% at the start of this year, and activity levels are higher: from 29% of board members handling a manuscript to over 40% of board members handling manuscripts each month.”

Looking ahead

Scaling our editorial board network in China is key to reflecting the full breadth of global research. As we continue to roll out our online communities and training, participating editors will gain new opportunities to advance their careers, build professional networks, and contribute more actively to their journals. If you’re an institution or researcher interested in collaborating with us on our editorial boards, we want to hear from you. 

Read more on China’s development as a leader in global research by perusing the Springer Nature Global Research Pulse: China report