A recently published essay lamented a perceived negative impact on chemistry associated with diversification of the work force. The contribution also made disparaging comments about research carried out in specific countries. That contribution, coupled with the great evidence of broader societal discrimination and prejudice against minorities of all types, in many different contexts, compelled the unusual step of ACS Catalysis crafting a statement from our editorial team. First, we reject the premise that excellence and diversity are mutually exclusive. We believe that the strengths of ACS Catalysis are directly derived, in part, from our diversity. Studies have repeatedly shown that diversity correlates with more effective and productive team and organizational function.(1)ACS Catalysis aspires to be THE global catalysis journal. This responsibility, in turn, guides our operational philosophy. We seek to publish the top 10% of papers appearing in catalysis journals, and we are globally inclusive. The international pool of talented, accomplished chemists and engineers working in catalysis is deep and diverse. Since ACS Catalysis was founded in 2010, a goal of the journal has been to be broadly representative of this pool in terms of the papers we publish, namely the top 10% of work in essentially all areas of catalysis. We have aimed to be both inclusive and elite, by relentlessly focusing on the quality of the science we publish while inviting contributions from all sectors of our community and utilizing appropriate referees from all over the world. We assert that every researcher, irrespective of their gender identity or gender expression, ethnic group, age, religion, sexual orientation, or country of residence should believe that their best work in catalysis belongs atACS Catalysis. Thus, we seek diversity in our authors and our referees, as well as the composition of our editorial team, our editorial advisory board (EAB), and our early career advisory board (ECAB). An effective way to build a diverse organization is to seek the most diverse pool of talented candidates available for any open position(s). With a diverse pool in mind, one can then optimize around all the relevant parameters. No singular parameter should prevail.(2)A diverse pool allows for optimization around both technical excellence and diversity. For instance, for an editorial appointment, we consider (a) the quality of the candidate’s published work, (b) their referee reports and professional responsiveness, (c) their specific area(s) of technical depth, (d) their breadth of knowledge, (e) their standing in the community, (f) their ability to function effectively as part of a team, and (g) their personal descriptors such as country of employment, ethnic background, and gender. We believe that any organization can seek to appropriately balance inclusivity and excellence, and this is what we seek to do. However, with only 18 Associate Editors (AE) and 38 EAB members, we cannot cover every last niche area of catalysis nor have representatives from every country. So we combat this by regularly rotating EAB and editorial team membership. The journal benefits from hearing from diverse voices. Since the journal’s launch in 2010–2011, nearly 100 EAB members hailing from across the world have served the journal, with 67% working in 20+ countries outside the United States. With the belief that the EAB should reflect the composition of the broader scientific community, it has a gender balance that has grown from 25 to 40% women over the past five years. Our ECAB provides us an opportunity to hear from the newest independent researchers within our community. In the last four years, we have been counseled by over 60 different ECAB members from 18 different countries, with representation of these boards at gender equity. As noted above, in our aspiration to be an elite but accessible catalysis journal—one where every researcher can aspire to publish their best work in catalysis—we place a singular focus on the originality, technical quality, and anticipated impact of the work that we choose to publish. The name and address on the submission is not a significant part of this assessment. For example, for papers handled by the Editor-in-Chief, this is the final thing that is checked before making an initial decision to (i) send for external review or (ii) decline or transfer. Moreover, the purpose of this check is simply to assess the authors’ recent prior work for the absence of incrementalism or paper fragmentation, as well as to ensure the selection of referees whom are not close associates of the authors’ group(s). In times where systemic racism and sexism are still abundantly obvious in society, there is no reason to believe that these elements cannot permeate the human aspects of scientific research. While scientists (and editors) pride themselves on their ability to be objective, as human beings, we are not perfect, and subjective elements can sneak up on us if we are not vigilant in reminding ourselves of our core values. To this end, it is important for any organization to have core principles that guide its operation. We aspire to make ACS Catalysis a place that exemplifies the twin pillars of (i) scientific excellence and (ii) inclusion and diversity of authors, referees, editors, and advisory board members. Arguments that excellence is being stymied by society’s increased focus on diversity and inclusion are false, rooted in bias and historical misconceptions. We atACS Catalysisreject these and any such opinions/arguments that aim to divide the scientific community or demean any person on the basis of race, ethnicity, country of origin, religion, sexual orientation, age, gender identity, or gender expression. Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS. This article references 2 other publications. Some researchers may suggest that the selected editor should be the best scientist in the world at what s/he does. However, “best” is subjective, and being a great scientist does not necessarily mean someone will be a great editor, referee, communicator, or team member. This article has not yet been cited by other publications. This article references 2 other publications. Some researchers may suggest that the selected editor should be the best scientist in the world at what s/he does. However, “best” is subjective, and being a great scientist does not necessarily mean someone will be a great editor, referee, communicator, or team member.

中文翻译：

---

卓越与多样性？不是一个选择

最近发表的一篇文章感叹与劳动力多样化相关的化学方面的负面影响。该文稿还对在特定国家进行的研究发表了贬低的评论。这一贡献，加上在许多不同情况下对各种类型的少数群体产生广泛社会歧视和偏见的有力证据，迫使ACS Catalysis采取了不寻常的步骤，精心编写了我们编辑团队的声明。首先，我们拒绝卓越与多样性是互斥的前提。我们认为，ACS催化的优势部分是由于我们的多样性而直接获得的。研究反复表明，多样性与更有效和更具生产力的团队和组织功能相关。（1）ACS Catalysis渴望成为《全球催化》杂志。这种责任反过来指导了我们的经营理念。我们力求发表催化期刊上发表的论文的前10％，而且我们具有全球包容性。从事催化工作的国际才华横溢的化学家和工程师丰富而多样。自ACS Catalysis于2010年成立以来，该期刊的目标一直是在我们发表的论文中广泛代表该人才库，即基本上在所有催化领域中工作排名前10％。我们的目标是成为包容性精英通过不懈地专注于我们出版的科学质量，同时邀请社会各界的贡献，并利用来自世界各地的适当裁判。我们认为，每个研究人员，无论其性别认同或性别表达方式，种族，年龄，宗教，性取向或居住国家/地区均应相信，他们在催化方面的最佳工作属于ACS Catalysis。因此，我们寻求作者和裁判的多样性，以及我们的编辑团队，编辑顾问委员会（EAB）和早期职业顾问委员会（ECAB）的组成。建立多元化组织的一种有效方法是寻找可用于任何公开职位的最多样化的人才库。考虑到多样化的池，然后可以围绕所有相关参数进行优化。（2）多样化的池可围绕技术卓越性和多样性进行优化。例如，对于编辑任命，我们考虑（a）候选人已发表作品的质量，（b）他们的裁判报告和专业回应，（c）他们特定的技术领域，（d）他们的广度知识，（e）他们在社区中的地位，（f）他们有效地作为团队成员的能力，以及（g）他们的个人描述，例如工作国家，种族背景和性别。我们相信，任何组织都可以寻求适当地兼顾包容性和卓越性，而这正是我们追求的目标。但是，只有18位副编辑（AE）和38位EAB成员，我们无法涵盖每个催化领域的最后一个利基领域，也无法拥有来自每个国家/地区的代表。因此，我们通过定期轮换EAB和编辑团队成员资格来应对这一问题。该杂志得益于各种声音的聆听。自该期刊于2010-2011年发布以来，已有来自世界各地的近100位EAB成员为该期刊服务，其中67％的成员在美国以外的20多个国家工作。相信EAB应该反映出更广泛的科学界的组成，因此在过去五年中，EAB的性别平衡已从25％增至40％。我们的ECAB为我们提供了听取社区内最新独立研究人员的机会。在过去的四年中，我们接受了来自18个不同国家的60多个ECAB成员的咨询，这些委员会代表了性别平等。如上所述，我们希望成为一本精锐但易于使用的催化期刊（每个研究人员都希望在该期刊上发表他们在催化方面的最佳著作），我们将重点放在原创性，技术质量，和我们选择发布的作品的预期影响。意见书上的姓名和地址不是该评估的重要组成部分。例如，对于由总编辑处理的论文，这是在做出以下初始决定之前要进行的最后检查：（i）发送外部审查或（ii）拒绝或转让。此外，该检查的目的仅仅是为了评估作者在没有增量主义或论文分散性的情况下的近期工作，并确保选择与作者团队没有紧密联系的裁判。在系统性种族主义和性别歧视在社会上仍然十分明显的时代，没有理由相信这些因素不能渗透到科学研究的人文方面。虽然科学家（和编辑）以客观的能力而自豪，作为人类，我们并不完美，如果我们不警惕自己的核心价值观，那么主观因素就会悄悄溜走。为此，任何组织都必须有指导其运作的核心原则，这一点很重要。我们渴望使ACS Catalysis是体现（i）科学卓越和（ii）作者，裁判，编辑和顾问委员会成员的包容和多样性的双重支柱的地方。关于社会对多样性和包容性的日益关注阻碍了卓越的观点是错误的，其根源在于偏见和历史误解。我们ACS Catalysis拒绝接受这些以及任何旨在基于种族，种族，原籍国，宗教，性取向，年龄，性别认同或性别表达来划分科学界或贬低任何人的观点/主张。本社论中表达的观点只是作者的观点，不一定是ACS的观点。本文引用了其他2个出版物。一些研究人员可能建议所选编辑应该是他/她所做的世界上最好的科学家。但是，“最佳”是主观的，而成为一名伟大的科学家并不一定意味着某人将成为一名出色的编辑，裁判，沟通者或团队成员。本文尚未被其他出版物引用。本文引用了其他2个出版物。一些研究人员可能建议所选编辑应该是他/她所做的世界上最好的科学家。但是，“最佳”是主观的，而成为一名伟大的科学家并不一定意味着某人将成为一名出色的编辑，裁判，沟通者或团队成员。