@HellbenderHecht Representation of editors from countries are besed definitely helps. So does discussing implicit biases with editors. 2x blind reviewing might help (ppl typically focus on the tole of 2xB on gender, but it could help w/ geographic bias as well.) 1/
@HellbenderHecht Finally, editors can be careful about the language they use in decision letters. Instead if of “have the MS reviewed by native English speakers” we use “fluent” or even better “...reviewed by an experienced editor of scientific writing in English”. 2/
@HellbenderHecht This focuses on the issue amd solution (writing that need improvement and finding an editor to review it) rather than the author’s (assumed) background or abilities. 3/
@HellbenderHecht Finally, I encourage editors to focus on the science because we can always fix the writing. Which brings me to the last thing journals can do - dedicate funds to development editing. 4/
@HellbenderHecht It’s a major chunk out of @Biotropica’s budget, but we are a society journal and view paying for editors to help authors to clean up the writing as one of the important benefits of membership in @theATBC. 5/
@HellbenderHecht @Biotropica @theATBC (Shout out to @PlantEditors, who have been providing outstanding service to @Biotropica for years. Hire them for all your editing needs!) 6/
