{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022154850746268658, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0046641791044776115, 'mean_word_length': 5.335302806499262, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nobles et al. Respond to Commentaries on Representation by Gender and Affiliation in Key Presentation Formats at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research.

We thank all of the past-presidents of the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) who were invited to provide commentaries for their invaluable and insightful contributions (1–4). They provided thoughtful critiques and interpretation of the analyses in which we evaluated equity in representation by gender and affiliation in presentations at the SER annual meeting (5). In addition, all of the commentaries addressed larger questions of representation at SER and provided concrete solutions to improve equity in the selection of presenters in key presentation formats. As noted in the commentaries, the SER Diversity and Inclusion Committee is already leading the way with many new initiatives started in the past few years to increase equity and representation. Here, we reflect on a few key points raised in the commentaries. In their commentaries, Dr. Marchbanks (1) and Dr. Lauderdale (2) raised important considerations for the interpretation of findings from our study (5). These include misclassification of gender, classification of institutions as public versus private, and reliance on h-index as a proxy for seniority. A critical point raised was the inclusion of the 2016 Epidemiology Conference of the Americas in the analysis, which, as noted, included multiple professional epidemiologic societies and may not adequately represent a typical SER meeting for that timeframe. As noted in all of the commentaries, the analysis lacked information on abstracts and symposia that were rejected, as well as reviewer scores, which limited inference on factors contributing to the observed differences in representation. We additionally emphasize that we used accepted abstracts as a proxy for the pool from which chairs and symposium speakers would be drawn, which not only introduces misclassification but raises questions regarding who that pool would have included at the time and who should be included in the future. As noted in the commentaries, the analyses lacked critical information on axes of identity including race/ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, confirmed gender identity, religious affiliation, and disability. We would like to emphasize that interpretation of findings from this study should in no way prioritize action around factors associated with representation by gender and affiliation to the exclusion of other critical axes of identity. For example, we observed that women may have lower odds of being selected to give a symposium talk, but they had similar (or greater) odds of being invited to give an oral presentation in a concurrent contributed session (now called oral abstract session) (5). However, this does not imply that persons from other axes of identity have equity in representation in oral abstract sessions or that steps to improve equity for abstract review, selection of oral abstract sessions, and selection of oral presentations should not be a priority. Dr. Marchbanks emphasized the importance of future research that improves upon our methodologic approach to obtain more complete information on axes of identity, rejected abstracts and symposia, scores for abstracts and symposia, and information on the influence of social networks and leadership (1). Drs. Ahern, Kaufman, and Werler (3) additionally raised the importance of building on the findings of the 2018 SER member survey to routinely survey SER membership and evaluate the impact of new initiatives and programming on diversity, equity, and inclusion (6). As Dr. Galea (4) detailed, when left unchecked, both unconscious and conscious biases can lead to exclusion and lack of representation, and the field of epidemiology is not an exception to the influence of bias. Dr. Lauderdale raised the important point that representation not only affects those who are provided the opportunity to present but also contributes to norms—particularly for trainees and young researchers—that can shape expectations of one’s own career prospects and who is perceived as having authority and respect in the field (2). The commentaries contributed important strategies that can be used to address