When we look at a problem like the lack of diversity in research, the solution can seem so far-reaching that it’s a challenge to know where to begin. Diversity, equity, and inclusion run the risk of becoming buzzwords for organizations instead of the absolute core of our values and behaviors. And while it’s a challenge to build a meaningful strategy for creating a more welcoming and inclusive environment for researchers, it’s even harder to move it forward, to measure progress, and to evaluate whether we’re having any impact at all.

But that is exactly why we must keep going, and why we can’t allow discussions around equity to lose momentum. We brainstorm ideas, we listen to our communities for their needs, we experiment to see which ideas work, and we learn along the way, constantly adjusting our course.

With so many ideas, we need to work together and partner as a community. From the publisher’s perspective, we need strategies for respectful data practices that help us measure diversity without impacting privacy (or the fear that such data might be used to further perpetuate stereotypes or adversely impact authors in marginalized groups). We need greater diversity on editorial boards to nurture diverse perspectives. We need to facilitate greater global collaboration, so we meet the needs of researchers in low and middle income countries as much as those in the Global North.

Sometimes it seems that every identifiable challenge is just the tip of its own iceberg. Take this example: during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic when many countries were on lockdown, we heard repeated concerns that this would disproportionately harm women in the research community given the greater share of household, childcare, and eldercare that typically falls on their shoulders. We read article after article about how women would fall behind, and many of our editors asked us how to provide support.

There are several things we need to figure out here: first, does the submission data support this hypothesis? What about peer review – are women turning down peer review opportunities during the pandemic because they are overworked? This data is hard to collect for a single journal, never mind across all of Wiley’s 1,700 journals. And if this does turn out to be true, how can publishers ease some of the burden on women researchers during this time without the ability to influence compensation systems in higher education, or without being able to influence greater equity in society at large?

What this scenario tells us is that equity issues are interlinked across all the areas of our lives, and we can’t solve them in research without advocating for greater equity everywhere.

We’re in the business of improving diversity in research for the long haul. When I look 20 years to the future, and imagine how far we will have come, I hope that we are able to start at the roots and grow a more equitable system for every ambitious researcher, regardless of any aspect of their individual status. That means tackling imbalances from early education to higher, and the persistent cultural stereotypes and unconscious biases that hold people back around the world.

There are some who might say that in 20 years, we’ll be living in a future where the identity of the researcher doesn’t matter at all. Maybe they are identified only with numerical IDs, like ORCID. But is that the diverse future we want? Researchers will always be at the heart of our community – and we want to encourage a community that welcomes and embraces people for all aspects of their identity and perspective.

Within those 20 years we’ll be welcoming a whole new generation of researchers, who will have grown up with the events of the past year, such as protests for justice and equality, and a global pandemic, as a formative part of their education. In 20 years, that generational change can start to stamp out some of the root causes of the lack of diversity, but only if we put in the work now.

I hope that in 20 years, when children take the Draw a Scientist test, which educators use to evaluate stereotypes, every child draws themselves instead of a white man in a lab coat. I hope that there is universal access to science learning and entertainment – science fairs, interactive museums, and more – that can help every child see that research is for them if only they have the passion. Without full societal representation, we’ll only be able to move the needle on diversity in the research community so far.

But long before 20 years, we have to make a start. We have to have the conversation, and we have to change behaviors and practices. What if institutions and funders require diverse research teams? What if the publishing industry improves equity of all kinds – gender, race, geography, and more – on editorial boards, in peer reviewer pools, and among authors? What if individual researchers actively seek out colleagues from the Global South or other marginalized groups with whom to collaborate?

The research our community produces will be better with improved diversity – and all of us who play a role in the research community will be the better for it as well. We are committed to doing our part to create the climate in which we want to live.

This piece is part of our series, What does the future hold and how will we get there? Download and read our whitepaper here.