A first look at diversity gaps in psychotherapy research publications and representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a pervasive underrepresentation of researchers and clinicians from diverse backgrounds in psychology. This is the first study to focus on diversity gaps in Psychotherapy Research. We examine a gap in the representation of research from low-income countries and summarize barriers and solutions to increase diversity in the field. METHOD: , between 28 April 2005 and 22 June 2023. RESULTS: Most submissions were from Europe and North America, with the fewest from Africa and Asia/Northeast Asia. High-income countries had significantly more submissions than low-income countries, with gaps increasing over time. North America and Europe had the highest acceptance rates and Africa and Asia/Southeast Asia had the lowest rates. CONCLUSION: is one of the most internationally representative journals in the field. Yet, we found underrepresentation of non-western countries. There is a need to increase the representation of research participants and researchers from non-western countries through direct initiatives and investments in research and researchers from underrepresented backgrounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".