US health journal editors' opinions and policies on research in race, ethnicity, and health.
Health research on race and ethnicity has been criticized for lacking rigor in conceptualization, terminology, and analysis. Scientific journals' editorial processes help determine research quality. This survey assessed editors' awareness of current debates, attitudes toward recent recommendations, and involvement in developing editorial policies. Twenty-nine editors of health journals with impact factors of > or = 1 (based on citation ratings) were sent a questionnaire including four key problems identified in research literature and recommendations from federal agencies; 23 (79%) responded. Seven editors relevant policies. Two had read the federal directive on racial and ethnic classification; one was aware of its current review. Most perceived the four key problems as uncommon. The majority agreed with Public Health Service recommendations on race and ethnicity research, except for analyzing effects of racism. Approximately 20% had discussed issues with co-editors, editorial boards, or reviewers. About 40% saw further discussion as beneficial; four planned to draft guidelines. Editors' potential for helping resolve problems in race/ethnicity research is not being realized. Greater participation would be beneficial to public health research and practice.
Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599-7400, USA.
T
T
Bennett
R
R
Bhopal
D003657:Decision Making; D035081:Editorial Policies; D004989:Ethics; D005006:Ethnicity; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D018156:Journalism, Medical / Q000592:standards*; D011050:Policy Making; D044469:Racial Groups; D012106:Research; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D006113:United Kingdom