The State of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Cloud Physics Community

Ladino, Luis A.; Ardon-Dryer, Karin; Pereira, Diana L.; Proske, Ulrike; Ramirez-Diaz, Zyanya; Velicu, Antonia; Kanji, Zamin A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499

Preprints

24 Sep 2025

| 24 Sep 2025

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscience Communication (GC).

The State of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Cloud Physics Community

Luis A. Ladino, Karin Ardon-Dryer, Diana L. Pereira, Ulrike Proske, Zyanya Ramirez-Diaz, Antonia Velicu, and Zamin A. Kanji

Abstract. The Geosciences are amongst the least diverse research fields, where women and other underrepresented 19 groups face systemic biases. This paper presents the state of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the cloud-physics community, by combining a metadata analysis of 6987 cloud-physics peer-reviewed journal articles published between 1970 and 2020 with responses from a survey of 198 participants from the cloud-physics community. Women first author contributions are evident only after 1997 and presently only ∼17 % of studies in the cloud physics field are led by women. Authors from the Global North dominate first and corresponding-author positions, with only ∼5 % of studies led by tropical affiliation authors. The latter’s participation was low even for study sites in the tropics, suggesting widespread practice of parachute science. Of the survey respondents, 23 % identified as a minority group and feel that being a minority has had a negative impact on their scientific career, in terms of collaborations, promotions, publishing, funding, salary, and citations. Although the survey data shows the general experiences of cloud physicists globally, the perspectives from this work can aid the cloud-physics community to develop strategies to improve DEI in institutions beyond a business case for a diverse science community. Rather we should consider an equity-centered approach by understanding our ethical responsibilities to benefit research of the climate system.

Received: 12 Sep 2025 – Discussion started: 24 Sep 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1804 KB)

Supplement (475 KB)

Download & links

Luis A. Ladino, Karin Ardon-Dryer, Diana L. Pereira, Ulrike Proske, Zyanya Ramirez-Diaz, Antonia Velicu, and Zamin A. Kanji

Status: open (until 19 Nov 2025)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4499', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Oct 2025 reply
This manuscript presents an important and timely assessment of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the cloud physics community, combining a metadata analysis of 6,987 peer-reviewed papers (1970–2020) with a community survey of 198 respondents. The topic is highly relevant, and the effort to integrate quantitative and qualitative perspectives is commendable. However, several conceptual and structural issues limit the manuscript’s clarity and impact in its current form. In particular, the terminology used to describe researchers from the Global South, the framing of gender analysis, and the interpretation of small-sample survey results require substantial revision. Addressing these concerns would considerably strengthen the analytical rigor, inclusivity, and global sensitivity of the paper.
Major Comments
Terminology – “Tropical Scientists”: In my opinion, the use of the term “tropical scientists” is highly problematic. I find it both unnecessary and ill-considered that the authors have chosen to introduce a new label that lacks conceptual grounding and adds no clarity to the discussion. As someone working within this geographic zone, I find this terminology technically inaccurate and, frankly, counterproductive—it conflates latitude with social and institutional realities, and risks exoticizing researchers from the Global South. In my view, this framing reflects a misunderstanding of the issue it seeks to address. Established terms such as Global North/South, high-, middle-, or low-income countries (as defined by the UN or World Bank), or developed/developing countries—though imperfect—are far more appropriate, as they rest on recognized metrics and are widely understood in academic and policy contexts. I strongly recommend removing the term entirely and clarifying the distinction between tropical study sites and researchers from the Global South, which are not interchangeable categories.

Use of “Minorities” vs “Marginalized”: The manuscript frequently uses the term “minorities.” Given the global context of the study, where numerical minorities may differ by region, the term “marginalized” would be more appropriate and inclusive. It emphasizes systemic disadvantage rather than numerical representation. This change would also align better with the ethical framing of equity in the paper’s conclusion.

Gender Analysis and Non-Binary Representation: The gender analysis appears to be strictly binary (men/women). While this may have been constrained by data availability (e.g., use of genderize.io), the discussion section should at least acknowledge and briefly discuss the exclusion of trans and non-binary individuals. For instance, the authors could note the limitations of algorithmic gender inference, and mention issues such as misgendering, the use of dead names in publication records, and the broader underrepresentation of trans scientists in the geosciences. This would strengthen the inclusivity and awareness reflected in the DEI framing.

Survey Interpretation and Sample Size Limitations: The metadata analysis is the stronger and more robust component of the paper. However, the survey-based results (N=198) present significant limitations when further divided by gender, country, and ethnicity. When broken down into subcategories, the sample size per group, in my opinion, becomes too small for reliable interpretation or for drawing broad conclusions about regional or demographic patterns. I suggest restructuring the Results section so that the metadata analysis comes first—forming the backbone of the findings—followed by the survey results as complementary qualitative insight. The discussion could then focus on how these two strands inform each other, rather than treating both as equally representative.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-RC1
- EC1: 'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 12 Oct 2025 reply
  
  Thank you for your excellent review.
  
  Reply
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-EC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-4499', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Oct 2025 reply
In this study, the authors present the current state and over time development of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in the cloud physics community by considering two different data sets: metadata of 6,987 published papers between 1970 and 2020, and the survey responses from 198 participants. This research is significant for the advancement of the geosciences as it helps identify areas that need improvement. However, there are some issues with the framing of certain aspects, including the terminology used. Therefore, my general comments align with the Rev1.

General comments:
Underrepresented instead of the word minority or marginalised: Minority means that the smaller number or part. As Rev1 mentioned, minorities differ from region to regionIt is important to note that labelling the global south as a minority is a Western-centric viewpoint. The groups considered in this context are not smaller in number; they are underrepresented, overlooked, or lacking visibility. Additionally, "marginalised" implies insignificance or a peripheral status, which also doesn’t adequately convey the issue at hand.

Terminology tropical scientists/countries: The term "tropical" carries connotations that could present an "exotic" portrayal, which is not appropriate here. I completely agree with Rev1. Additionally, framing a comparison of “tropical countries” with so so-called global north is a false dichotomy. One is defined by economic and historical factors under neo-colonial structures, while the other is geographical.

The gender analysis presented is binary and fails to include non-binary and transgender individuals. This omission is not addressed in the paper. Although the potential for misgendering due to the algorithm is acknowledged, it still contains uncategorized (gender-blind) names. Furthermore, such gender-inferencing algorithms often struggle with the accuracy of non-Western names.

I will try to elaborate on what I mentioned in the general comments by giving specific examples from the first couple of pages, which are valid throughout the entirety of the paper.

line 46: ".... minority representation..." This gap exists for any underrepresented group, not just minorities. You might not be a minority, but underrepresented, you might be a minority if you are looking from a Western lens. We are great in numbers, but our work or existence is not represented or acknowledged.
line 65: same issue here with the use of minorities
line 70: Women are underrepresented but larger in number, exactly like the scientists from the so-called global south. They are underrepresented, and there is a lack of acknowledgement.
line 81: In the cited paper, this is mentioned as "USA, UK, ... However, these are not necessarily the most collaborative countries, if measured by their proportion of collaborative output... The analysis provided evidence that countries rated high in terms of scientific development were more likely to collaborate." This does not necessarily mean low income with low scientific development.
line 86&96: Egypt and South Africa are not situated in the tropics but the subtropics. When comparing these regions with the global north, framing it as a dichotomy could be misleading, aka a false dichotomy. Additionally, the term "tropical" carries connotations that could present an "exotic" portrayal, which is not appropriate here.
line 189: Latitude range includes Australia, which is considered to be a "global north" country. If the intention is to analyse underrepresentation, this could lead to misrepresentation in the analysis. Although the countries are highlighted later in the table, it would be beneficial to clarify this point earlier on.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-RC2

Luis A. Ladino, Karin Ardon-Dryer, Diana L. Pereira, Ulrike Proske, Zyanya Ramirez-Diaz, Antonia Velicu, and Zamin A. Kanji

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-supplement

Luis A. Ladino, Karin Ardon-Dryer, Diana L. Pereira, Ulrike Proske, Zyanya Ramirez-Diaz, Antonia Velicu, and Zamin A. Kanji

Viewed

Total article views: 451 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
388	50	13	451	51	11	8

HTML: 388
PDF: 50
XML: 13
Total: 451
Supplement: 51
BibTeX: 11
EndNote: 8

Views and downloads (calculated since 24 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	244	17	4	265
Oct 2025	134	30	9	173
Nov 2025	10	3	0	13

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 24 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	244	17	4	265
Oct 2025	134	30	9	173
Nov 2025	10	3	0	13

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 447 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 447 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Nov 2025

Short summary

A survey and literature metadata analysis from the cloud physics community are used to investigate the state of diversity, equity and inclusion in the cloud physics research community. We show the evolution of gender contributions to cloud physics and the inclusion of scientists from the Global South. The publication analysis reveals the rate of men and women dropping out of the field is not different, however, gender balance was better achieved when women led publications compared to men.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0