Table 1 Summary of processes to address evaluation of health equity-oriented articles and bias in peer review among neonatal-focused academic journalsa.

From: Addressing bias and knowledge gaps regarding race and ethnicity in neonatology manuscript review

Journal processes

Journal number

Total N (%)

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

 

Evidence of manuscripts focused on health equity per current websiteb

  Research paper published on health equity

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

c

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9 (75%)

  Call for manuscripts or special issues focused on racial disparities or structural racism

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

4 (33.3%)

  Invited commentaries for manuscripts focused on health equity

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10 (83.3%)

  Perspective or editorial published on health equity

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9 (75%)

Evidence of processes to address bias in peer review per current websiteb

  Statement on website on how journal may approach bias in peer-review

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

1 (8.3%)

  Transparent process by which authors may respond to concerns in their review

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

5 (42.7%)

  System to report perceived racism and/or other kinds of discrimination during the peer-review process anonymously

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

0 (0%)

  Transparent application process for selection on editorial board

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

1 (8.3%)

  Contact information for editor-in-chief readily available

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

10 (83.3%)

  Contact information for editorial board (not editor-in-chief) readily available

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

12 (100%)

  Transparency of race/ethnicity, gender or other characteristics of reviewers, editors-in-chief, or other editorial staff

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

0 (0%)

  Statement on effort to diversify reviewers, editors-in-chief, or other editorial staff

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

4 (33.3%)

  1. aReference to COPE website and guidelines was not sufficient to account for any criteria above.
  2. bData acquired from corresponding websites January 5–13, 2022.
  3. cn/a, not within journal scope.