Today’s publish-or-perish research culture means that success in scientific publishing can determine who advances, who secures funding, and who remains in academia. While the system is demanding for most researchers, evidence shows that structural inequities mean it is not equally challenging for everyone.
Targeted support in scientific publishing
This is where the Life Science Editors Foundation (LSEF), a non-profit organization dedicated to accelerating equity in science, comes in with its JEDI award. The initiative aims to reduce inequities in scientific publishing by providing hands-on editorial mentoring to researchers facing disproportionate barriers in academia.
Rather than offering financial support, the award connects selected researchers with experienced volunteer editors who provide detailed feedback on manuscripts, grant proposals, or job applications. Since 2021, more than 50 researchers worldwide from graduate students to principal investigators, have received this guidance.
For Sofie, the award came at a crucial moment.
“I found out about this initiative at the perfect time,” she says. “It was Nick Leigh, co-coordinator of our DEI Committee here at the Center, who suggested that I should apply. He knew about the struggle that I have had with this particular manuscript and thought it could be a good and helpful opportunity.”
Like many researchers, Sofie has navigated a long and demanding peer-review process. In her case, a manuscript describing extensive in vivo work in chick embryos encountered conflicting reviewer feedback late in the publication process which resulted in a request for additional revisions that were simply not feasible, an experience that can be especially draining.
“When you have come this far along in the process, have already done a revision, and feel that the comments are quite unfair, it can be hard and you think, ‘what should I do?’ So, it means a lot to get help in this phase of a publication that I am quite proud of,” she notes.
Mentoring when it matters most
One distinctive feature of the JEDI Award is its speed and focus. Applications are reviewed quickly, and awardees are paired with mentors based on research area and specific needs. Sofie was matched with a senior developmental biologist, former CEO of Cell Press and editor-in-chief of Cell.
“My mentor started the day after I found out I was selected,” Sofie explains. “She is fantastic. It is great to hear from someone completely outside our group and our community here in Lund, receive independent scientific and editorial input, and really hear what they think about what I should do to move forward with the paper.”
All editors and mentors volunteer their time, many of them senior and well-established researchers.
“These are people who have 100 million things to do, and they still choose to support younger colleagues,” highlights Sofie. “I find that extremely encouraging.”
“Already, my mentor has comprehensively reviewed the entire submission process, including the original manuscript, the reviewer comments, our responses, and the revised version,” Sofie continues.
“She has also offered structural feedback that addressed both details and the overarching narrative. She immediately identified parts added solely in response to reviewer comments that made the manuscript messy and recommended how to streamline them. We also met over Zoom to discuss how best to reorganize the paper and plan our next steps, including potential target journals for resubmission. She really liked our work and even told me that ‘I’m not leaving until we get this manuscript published!’”
Why initiatives like the JEDI Award are needed
The JEDI Award targets early- and mid-career researchers facing structural obstacles in academia, including barriers linked to gender, race, disability, caregiving responsibilities, socioeconomic background, or language.
“When I applied, there was a long list of disadvantages you could select from,” Sofie explains. “Although I have certainly faced structural challenges as a woman in STEM, I still often feel privileged compared to many people from underrepresented groups who face far greater obstacles. One of the listed disadvantages was being a primary caregiver. I have a child with Type 1 diabetes that I care for on my own, an illness that is far more demanding than one can even imagine before experiencing it yourself. This made me reflect on my own situation in a new way.”
As co-coordinator of the Lund Stem Cell Center’s DEI Committee, Sofie sees the award as part of an important response to address inequities in research culture.
“It’s not a money award, but it’s exactly the kind of support that can make a real difference. We have so much data showing differences in who publishes, who gets cited, and who gets funded,” she says. “Initiatives like this are important because they provide targeted help when it really matters.”
Beyond her own experience, Sofie hopes more early career researchers will consider applying.
“We are quite alone as principal investigators,” she says. “It’s important to talk to others, ask for advice, and use the support that exists. Speaking from my own experience as a non-native English speaker, making use of today’s AI tools for writing support and going to English-speaking colleagues for editing advice is super helpful. Most people want to help, and programs like the JEDI Award make that support easier to access.”
