Promoting equity in the peer review process of journal publication

被引:12
|
作者
Bancroft, Senetta F. [1 ,2 ]
Ryoo, Kihyun [3 ]
Miles, Monica [4 ]
机构
[1] Southern Illinois Univ, Sch Educ, 625 Wham Dr,Mail Code 4610, Carbondale, IL 62901 USA
[2] Southern Illinois Univ, Sch Chem & Biomol Sci, 625 Wham Dr,Mail Code 4610, Carbondale, IL 62901 USA
[3] Univ N Carolina, Sch Educ, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[4] Mother Earth Literacies LLC, Buffalo, NY USA
关键词
academic journal peer review; diversity; equity; inclusion; JUDGMENT; QUALITY; SCIENCE; BIAS;
D O I
10.1002/sce.21733
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
While there is evidence to support the existence of identity-based disparities, inequities, and biases in the academic journal peer-review process, little research supports the presence of this bias in the peer-review process for academic journals in science education. Through an analysis of six leading journals in science education, we aimed to investigate the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as the presence of bias in the peer-review process, are addressed by these journals. We analyzed trends in the gender/sex, geographical affiliation, race/ethnicity, and the presence of equity-centered research focus for members of these journals' editors and editorial boards. We found that although gender/sex is well-balanced in these journals' editors and editorial boards, they are typically North American centric, and White individuals are overwhelmingly represented. Four journals had a quarter or more of individuals who pursue equity-centered research. Only two journals provided detailed information on how manuscripts are reviewed in their author submission guidelines. All used a double-blind approach to peer-review. One of the journals includes an explicit position on DEI. Based on the analyses and reflections on our own experiences, we recommend science education journals consider ways to probe whether bias does exist in their peer-review process, diversify their board to be more inclusive of scholars from communities historically marginalized, and move to a triple-blind approach to their peer-review process as mechanisms to mitigate bias in the journal peer review.
引用
收藏
页码:1232 / 1248
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Demystifying the Journal Submission, Peer Review, and Publication Process
    Likis, Frances E.
    Swett, Brittany
    JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2019, 64 (02) : 145 - 148
  • [2] Journal editing: Managing the peer review process for timely publication of articles
    Clark, A
    Singleton-Jackson, J
    Newsom, R
    PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 2000, 16 (03) : 62 - 71
  • [3] Journal editing: Managing the peer review process for timely publication of articles
    Allen Clark
    Jill Singleton-Jackson
    Ron Newsom
    Publishing Research Quarterly, 2000, 16 : 62 - 71
  • [4] Promoting equity and social justice in the peer review process: Tips for reviewers
    Fallon, Lindsay
    Grapin, Sally
    Newman, Daniel S.
    Noltemeyer, Amity
    SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 43 (01) : 12 - 17
  • [5] Peer review and the publication process
    Ali, Parveen Azam
    Watson, Roger
    NURSING OPEN, 2016, 3 (04): : 193 - 202
  • [6] On the peer review process in scientific publication
    Yucel, Dogan
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF BIOCHEMISTRY-TURK BIYOKIMYA DERGISI, 2012, 37 (02): : 212 - 214
  • [7] Peer review: purpose, process and publication
    Thistlethwaite, Jill
    CLINICAL TEACHER, 2012, 9 (04): : 201 - 204
  • [8] Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal-article publication
    Kumashiro, KK
    Pinar, WF
    Graue, E
    Grant, CA
    Benham, MKP
    Heck, RH
    Scheurich, JJ
    Luke, A
    Luke, C
    HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 2005, 75 (03) : 257 - 285
  • [9] Guest Editorial Introduction: Gender, Equity, and the Peer Review Process at the Journal of Field Archaeology
    Heath-Stout, Laura E.
    JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY, 2020, 45 (03) : 135 - 139
  • [10] In support of the journal peer review process
    Efron, Nathan
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPTOMETRY, 2018, 101 (06) : 713 - 715