This editor read with interest the article by Bunting et al., ICCS Women In Cytometry-Impact 10 Years Later: A call to promote gender equality, signed by 10 women members of our Professional Society (Bunting et al., 2020). This editor is acquainted with some of the signatories while there are others whom I am both pleased and honored to have known for many years, through both our Society and ISAC. For example, one of the signatories is considered “family”; a dearest friend and former co-worker whom I have had the pleasure of “…knowing forever.” Few years ago, this editor requested another signatory to be on our editorial board based both on her outstanding publication record and providing our Journal with superb reviews of submitted articles. This editor was thrilled when she both accepted my offer, and later rose to the level of current president of ICCS. As editor of our journal and member of the ICCS and ESCCA for many years, I have the highest respect for each of you and thank you all for bringing your concerns to my attention and would like here to take the opportunity to respond.

Since it is possible that few in the society have first-hand knowledge regarding the subject, initially it might be helpful to explain briefly some of the mechanics of our Journal's operations. In this case, specifically the role of the Editorial Board and the process by which individuals become members of the Editorial Board and Associate Editors of Clinical Cytometry. Clinical Cytometry Journal Editorial Board members are experienced and trusted group of our colleagues whose main responsibility is a commitment to help with reviewing papers submitted to the Journal. A far smaller group of more senior-executive associate editors solicit, supervise, and ultimately judge the reviews accomplished by members of the Editorial Board. Associate editors are not restricted in their selection of reviewers only to our Editorial Board. In fact, they are encouraged (for a variety of reasons outside the scope of this communication) to look outside of our Editorial Board members for assistance with reviewing submitted papers.

The most common way to become a Journal Editorial Board member is to gain both high praise and nomination to the chief editor from a well-established senior member of ICCS or ESCCA. To the best of my memory, all such sponsorships have been implemented. This editor has also personally identified and selected Editorial Board members. For every one of these nominations, it is the documented experience and scholarship that matters. Our field is highly specialized and precise, and that is the baseline from which we operate from, no matter where or from whom the nomination is sourced. Sporadically, “enthusiastic” individuals “recommend themselves” to the Editorial Board. To date, such self-nominations have been unqualified due to their lack of experience, as demonstrated by their nominal publication record and insufficient association with our field. However, that is not a permanent decision regarding these individuals. They are strongly encouraged to keep up their good work, maintain their enthusiasm, and the editor conveys sincere hope to have them join the journal's team at some future time, after their achievement of a more robust publication record and experience. While counseled by my predecessor to be sensitive in maintaining an international scope related to selecting Editorial Board members, this editor has never kept count of the gender either of those individuals nominated to me, those personally selected, nor self-nominating individuals.

Our journal's associate editors have worked their way through the ranks of the Editorial Board, and through years of accomplishment demonstrated by their scientific acumen, writing skills, leadership, and concomitant association with ICCS or ESCCA have been deservedly elevated to such a post of high responsibility. They are without question the backbone of the journal based upon their commitment, intelligence, diligence, and integrity. The selection of an Associate Editor has been without exception, based solely on individual and demonstrated merit.

It is likely the majority of our society, and frankly anyone who is not an associate, deputy or managing journal editor, has full appreciation of just how extremely arduous it is to enlist highly competent reviewers to judge submitted papers to the journal in a timely fashion. It takes an extraordinary investment of scholarship and commitment of time to comprehensively and professionally review a paper submitted for publication. Dedicated and skilled senior associate editors are even more difficult to identify and keep, but our Journal and Society is blessed to have those we do! Finally, it is inconceivable how our Journal would function at all without our managing editor, Doris Regal, who is irreplaceable as the glue that holds together this international complexity into a functioning entity.

It is also worth stating that numerous existing Editorial Board members were “inherited” when I became chief editor of the journal. If anything, this editor has been negligent in pruning and updating this list by deleting inactive members, as one of the Reviewers of the Bunting letter observed, and that is something this Editor will rectify. In implementing such action, it is possible that further gender parity within the Editorial Board will be appreciated.

With that preamble, I will transition to Bunting's letter. The word “qualified” was used twice in the letter, which this editor was pleased to note. In fact, it is quality and only quality that has been my concern regarding our journal and not matters related to diversity. Accordingly, since this editor knows the excellent work of many of those signatories of the letter, there is no reason to doubt their prospective positive appraisal and nomination of an individual for a post on the Editorial Board would reflect high quality, and all such recommendations are welcome!

Since 2012 at which time I assumed the role of Editor-in-Chief, the percentage of women associate editors increased from zero to the current level; presently there are now 300% more women that are Associate Editors than there were in 2012. Of the five associate editors appointed since 2012, a full 60% are women. This chief editor appointed women of French and Chinese extraction, and one who resides in Canada, for those concerned to matters related either to diversity or the Journal purposefully trying to maintain an international scope of viewpoints. Of the 20 Editorial Board members appointed since 2012 from locations such as Spain, India, Italy, Australia, and UK, nine are women. Since 2012, all four of the Wiley liaisons this Editor directly interfaced with for our Journal have been women, all excellent at their assignments. This Editor can continue to demonstrate a light show of statistics in this regard, but instead will categorically state that none of these data demonstrating increasing numbers of women involved in running our Journal were premeditated to increase such representation. Instead, this remarkable and continuing increase in gender equality occurred well before Bunting et al. was submitted, and has as its foundation this editor's belief that excellence should be rewarded and acknowledged, regardless of gender.

For example, when this editor asked respectively Drs. Wang, Litwin, and Bené to take roles as associate editors it never once occurred to him that “…he was asking a woman,” to assume these critical assignments. Each of these individuals was solicited because they are impeccable scientists, excellent communicators, and superb writers who this Editor has tremendous personal and professional respect for. Frankly, to this Editor it would be insulting to remotely insinuate that they are at these critical posts because “…they are women,” and he assures them here that was not the case. Each and every person asked to participate in the operations of our Journal has been based solely upon the quality of their character and documented merit. Never their gender, race, or any other “identity-based” characteristic.

Thus, I must confess to some measure of puzzlement by the tone of Bunting's letter in calling for further gender representation, as if the information just related was nonexistent. The point of that letter was to call for the gender representation that this editor has been systemically enacting since 2012.

While this editor will not presume to answer for the ICCS, it is apparent there is already a majority representation of women senior officers (~60%) and respectable representation at the Councilor level (~40%). The Bunting letter is co-authored by the current ICCS president and a past one who was additionally a Wallace Coulter awardee. It would appear this demonstrates palpable and continued progress towards gender equality within our society.

The signatories of Bunting et al. state “…we sought to look at the effectiveness of the steps that have been taken since 2009 to make ICCS a more gender equitable society.” This editor would respectfully submit these efforts have been successful and are here fully endorsed and applauded! The qualifications required to earn recognition for membership on our Editorial Board take years of time to earn, and the observed movement towards diversity is a welcome evolution. Nothing would make this editor happier than having more highly qualified individuals interested in working to collectively improve our journal, society, and profession by submitting excellent research papers, helping to review them, and enhance the scientific and medical goals of the ICCS and ESCCA!

This editor believes passionately that everyone should have equal opportunity and access to pursue their unique personal aspirations of professional fulfillment and happiness. He believes in the doctrine espoused by Martin Luther King, here paraphrased, to “…judge people by the content of their character, rather than their superficial appearance.”

That stipulated, while insisting on an equal opportunity, he does not believe that “equal outcomes” are possible or should be expected. Individuals make career choices, and when large numbers of people make individual choices, expecting the aggregate result of those choices to be perfectly representative by gender, race or ethnicity is sexist and racist. Such inappropriate expectations assume the uniformity of talent, interest, and drive for whole categories of people, rather than recognition of their individual talent, integrity, and merit (Goldberg, 2018).

Finally, do I doubt gender bias still exists? Of course not, as regrettably there remain holdouts of intolerance throughout our culture and the greater world. However, while I do my best to counter such evil, it is logical that one cannot eradicate bigotry, sexism, or racism by ourselves discriminating against classes of people, or succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations. This Editor promises that individuals will be judged solely on their integrity and merit. Specifically, that is a synergetic combination of their demonstrated scholarly academic achievement, competence, professionalism, talent, and enthusiasm. Since 2012, before the conception of Bunting et al., qualified women have been appointed to posts of Journal responsibility based on these values. Since then undoubtedly some of these individuals were positively influenced by women in cytometry, which is fantastic! Even if not so influenced, this Editor is confident women are more than capable of the satisfaction of achievement instituted entirely on their own, based upon their demonstrated competence and individual merit. In closing, as editor of our journal I applaud and thank those cosignatories to the Bunting letter for further raising awareness about gender equality and will do everything to integrate its message toward the improvement and academic quality of our journal.