the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Sep 2025
The State of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Cloud Physics Community
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.
- Preprint
(1804 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(475 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 Jan 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4499', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Oct 2025
reply
-
EC1: 'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 12 Oct 2025
reply
Thank you for your excellent review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-EC1
-
EC1: 'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 12 Oct 2025
reply
-
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.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-RC2 -
EC2: 'Thank you for RC2', David Crookall, 11 Nov 2025
reply
Thank you for your excellent review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-EC2
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4499', Anonymous Referee #3, 11 Nov 2025
reply
This paper presents an analysis into the current climate and feelings of belonging within the specific geoscience community of cloud physics. It utilizes two different approaches to address this question: a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed publications and an online survey. The question addressed in the paper is a unique contribution to the field, however there are several significant issues that need to be revised and addressed before publication. In addition to the previous two referee comments above, I will add the following:
- There has been a surplus of more recent work that highlights the their point in lines 45-47 (Although various programs, policies, and inclusive environments are being developed to address issues such as gender inequality in academia, many gaps in other minority representation still remain (e.g., Hispanic, black, and indigenous communities; Bernard and Cooperdock, 2018; NCSES, 2019; Gewin, 48 2020; Odekunle, 2020). Please include an updated literature review from the last 5 years in this.
- I agree with the previous two referees that “marginalized” is a more appropriate term than minority. Based on the descriptors provided, another alternative would be to say “historically excluded” groups. This is a better descriptor that is commonly used and recognizes the fact that these groups have been intentionally excluded by the system, as opposed to just individual actions.
- In line 55 – able-bodied individuals are also significantly more represented in all fields than in the general population. There is literature on this as well and should be included in the literature review.
- Lines 58-59 (The lack of diversity and inclusion across academic communities manifests itself in systematic bias of under-represented minorities). I disagree with how this comment is written – the system was intentionally designed to prevent lack of diversity and inclusion from the very beginning. The system is the problem, which further exacerbates the lack of diversity and inclusion we see today.
- I think it would also be beneficial to expand on the background of cloud physics as a research field. It seems that your assumption is that everyone in this field trained in geosciences, or is there a combination of physics, chemistry, geography, etc? Each of these fields has presented its own variations in why they have issues related to DEI and should be included as a background variable when considering the climate of cloud physics.
- Your response rates are not clearly defined and need to be included. How many individuals were included in the ICCP listserv and the other announcement sent? How many participants actually registered for the 2021 meeting? Comparing this number to other membership numbers is not sufficient – especially when the data is anonymous and you cannot guarantee that individuals did not take the survey more than one time. I don’t agree with the statement that it represents 30-47% of the community as a whole – you should only report on response rates from who the survey was disseminated to.
- Lines 137-139: you say the number of respondents who were Indian was higher – but how do you know that if the data is anonymous? Please clarify.
- Lines 206-208: What are the actual stats presented by Dutt, 2020? The ratio of white/non-white seems higher than what the ratio is in the US.
- Figure 1: The color purple is used to signify two different things – please use different colors for the “total” versus “other” gender category.
- The paper published by Marin-Spiotta et al (2023) in Earth’s Future provides survey results on the workplace climate in the geosciences. You should include this in your discussion/analysis as a comparison since their survey results include over 2000 survey responses.
- Did you ask if survey respondents had experienced bullying or harassment within a specified time frame or ever? This should be further clarified and justified on either approach.
- Line 324 – the leaky pipeline analogy is problematic. Berhe et al (2024) describes this in their Nature Geoscience paper and recommends a better analogy.
- Line 335-336. I disagree that you have the numbers to state that you are representing the cloud physicists globally, based on my previous comment about response rates. This should be removed.
- Given the broad demographics of who this survey was disseminated to, I think you should expand on potential limitations of your findings on feeling included. Your question was simply “Do you feel included in the cloud physics community?” This is really vague and could be interpreted in so many different ways – I am less inclined to say that this is a valuable finding with this approach. What do you mean when you say included? Just in the workplace, in professional societies, when in school? This is not well defined.
- Why did you only ask about working with women in your survey? This is not inclusive to the entire gender spectrum.
- What does “sensitive to gender issues” mean? Again as above – this is so vague and could be taken to mean so many things. I don’t agree that this should be presented in this dataset, it’s not a well designed survey question.
- Question 40 in your survey – were you only talking about race/ethnicity here? Or was this applicable to any and all identities? Not clearly defined, which is problematic.
- You inherently introduced a lot of bias in your survey by using the term “tropical” to describe an entire subset of people. This is problematic.
- You say that the majority of people said no to question 67. Why did you not include an additional clarifier on that to explain their perspective? There could be many reasons why participants selected no, I don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate on that in your paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-RC3 -
EC3: 'Thank you for RC3', David Crookall, 11 Nov 2025
reply
Thank you for your excellent review. Much appreciated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4499-EC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 446 | 103 | 25 | 574 | 62 | 16 | 12 |
- HTML: 446
- PDF: 103
- XML: 25
- Total: 574
- Supplement: 62
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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