bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.03.30.486429

Discussion-based DEI education to help create inclusive and open BME research lab environments

Abstract

Diversity in teams has been shown to enhance creativity and innovation, particularly in teams where all members felt a sense of belonging. Creating an inclusive environment in a lab setting that provides a sense of belonging to all is challenging. This is particularly true in a field like Biomedical Engineering/Bioengineering where diversity is multifaceted and includes peoples diverse personal/cultural backgrounds and also diverse scientific backgrounds. In a research lab, there is additional diversity in training, as most labs contain trainees at different levels (undergrad, grad, postdoc, high school). To aid in creating a sense of belonging in a research lab, we have devised a novel initiative based upon open group discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion topics. The initiative included a first presentation/discussion by the PI to set the stage for defining diversity, equity, and inclusion, and provided examples of existing DEI issues within our field, such as lack of racial diversity in awards like the NIH New Innovator Award and among conference speakers. After the initial presentation, trainee-led, bi-weekly-structured discussions were maintained. First, discussions focused broadly on any DEI related topic to enhance general knowledge on DEI issues and provide discussion comfort among the group. Second, there was a period to deepen knowledge of a specific topic (in our example, microaggressions), which was followed up with a period of discussions on potential solutions (such as how to react when observing a microaggression and what to do in response to realizing ones own microaggression). Students reported that our discussions were the only ones they have had in their training thus far, and felt that these discussions made them feel like they belonged in the lab, made the lab more inclusive, enhanced their awareness of how to create inclusive spaces, and taught them about a variety of DEI topics. Overall, our DEI discussions have fostered open conversations within our lab group about DEI-related issues and topics at the lab, department, university, and countrywide levels and has established a space where students feel safe to voice their opinions and ask questions. We hope to ultimately use these DEI discussions to create actionable steps for addressing topics, e.g., microaggressions, in different scenarios that can be applied by group members in their future careers.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Naiknavare, R., Maisel, K.. 2022-04-01. Discussion-based DEI education to help create inclusive and open BME research lab environments. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.30.486429

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗