Bennett T, Bhopal R
Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599-7400, USA.
J Natl Med Assoc. 1998 Jul;90(7):401-8.
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.
关于种族和族裔的健康研究因在概念化、术语和分析方面缺乏严谨性而受到批评。科学期刊的编辑流程有助于确定研究质量。本次调查评估了编辑对当前辩论的认识、对近期建议的态度以及在制定编辑政策方面的参与情况。向29位影响因子≥1（基于引用率）的健康期刊编辑发送了一份问卷，其中包括研究文献中确定的四个关键问题以及联邦机构的建议；23位（79%）做出了回应。七位编辑了解相关政策。两位读过关于种族和族裔分类的联邦指令；一位知晓其目前正在审查。大多数人认为这四个关键问题并不常见。除了分析种族主义的影响外，大多数人同意公共卫生服务部关于种族和族裔研究的建议。约20%的人曾与共同编辑、编辑委员会或审稿人讨论过相关问题。约40%的人认为进一步讨论有益；四人计划起草指导方针。编辑在帮助解决种族/族裔研究问题方面的潜力尚未得到发挥。更多的参与将有利于公共卫生研究和实践。
