Assembling an International Editorial Board. An Account of Diversity in a Scientific Mega-Journal

This qualitative study examined how the scientific journal PLOS ONE assembled its editorial board, which is made up of more than 10,000 academic editors based in 131 countries. The study investigated how the board’s geographic diversity is enacted by the human and nonhuman actors of the assemblage. PLOS ONE is an open-access (OA) mega-journal launched in 2006 by the nonprofit organization Public Library of Science (PLOS). It publishes over 16,000 papers yearly, covering more than 200 scientific subjects of science and medicine. I drew on Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which proposes that processes, ideas, organizations, or objects are continuously generated within a network of relationships between human and nonhuman actors. I used the case study methodology and employed two qualitative research methods. First, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 academic editors from different fields, including biology and life sciences, chemistry, medicine and health sciences, physics, and social sciences. These editors are affiliated with research institutions across 14 countries. Additionally, I interviewed PLOS leaders, staff members, and a representative from an external contractor. Second, I employed documentary analysis of organizational documents and online secondary data. Findings showed that the human and nonhuman actors of the PLOS ONE editorial board reproduce biases in science based on authors’ and editors’ geographic origin, the journal’s size and the low diversity of PLOS staff members. I also identified that APCs (Article Processing Charges) act as mediators that trigger betrayals among the actors, which has consequences on the stability of the assemblage, especially in terms of trust between the publisher and the scientific community. Finally, this study also identified that publishing an OA mega-journal has contradictions and unexpected effects on the publishing landscape due to its large scale.