Race and Ethnicity of Editorial Board Members and Editors as an Indicator of Structural Racism in Psychiatry and Neuroscience Journals

Abstract

This study examines the numbers of scientists who are underrepresented in medicine serving on editorial boards and in leadership positions in peer-reviewed psychiatry/neuroscience journals.

Recent controversy over unfamiliarity with structural racism in medicine¹ has highlighted the importance of inclusivity of scientists who are underrepresented in medicine (URM), defined as “those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,”² among peer-reviewed journals. While previous studies have examined gender and geographic diversity on editorial boards,³ including psychiatry journals,⁴ there are limited available published data on race and ethnicity of scientists serving on editorial boards of peer-reviewed journals for any medical specialties⁵ because these data are not routinely collected. This study examined numbers of scientists who are URM serving on editorial boards and in leadership positions in peer-reviewed psychiatry/neuroscience journals.

Methods

Data were anonymously collected via Qualtrics survey emailed to 172 editors in chief of 151 psychiatry/neuroscience journals and distributed through Listservs among 8 psychiatry/neuroscience organizations (eMethods in the Supplement). The survey was distributed from July to August 2020; a given IP address could be used to respond to the survey only once. To protect respondent identity, the survey was designed to collect anonymous responses, thus preventing analysis of the proportion of respondents from each recruitment source. Respondents were asked about their editorial board experiences and asked to self-report demographics including age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and country of origin. Respondents reported race and ethnicity separately and could identify with multiple races. The University of California, Davis institutional review board approved study procedures. Participants gave informed consent before completing the survey; participants were not compensated.

Results

A total of 283 respondents were analyzed. Of those, 76 (26.9%) self-reported as African American/Black, 28 (9.9%) as Asian, 47 (16.6%) as Hispanic/Latinx, and 136 (48.1%) as White (Table 1). Contrary to known gender inequities in academic publishing,³ 164 (64%) identified as women. The majority of respondents (218 [85.1%]), identified as heterosexual/straight, 24 (9.4%) as gay/lesbian, 11 (4.3%) as bisexual, and 2 (0.8%) as queer. Overall, 111 respondents (39.2%) endorsed ever serving on an editorial board, including 32 editors in chief.

Table 1. Demographics and Sample Characteristics.

Demographic	Participants, No. (%)
Total No.	283
Gendera
Cisgender men	91 (35.5)
Cisgender women	164 (64.1)
Nonbinary	1 (0.4)
Age, mean (SD) [range], ya	48.2 (13.7) [24-82]
Sexual orientationa
Heterosexual/straight	218 (85.1)
Gay/lesbian	24 (9.4)
Bisexual	11 (4.3)
Queer	2 (0.8)
Other	1 (0.4)
Race and ethnicityb
African American/Black	76 (26.9)
Asian	28 (9.9)
Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander	1 (0.4)
Hispanic/Latinx	47 (16.6)
Middle Eastern/North African	5 (1.8)
Native American/Alaska Native	3 (1.1)
White	136 (48.1)
Otherc	3 (1.1)
Country of origind
United States	169 (71.9)
Other	66 (28.1)
Board participatione,f
Currently serving on an editorial board	85 (30.0)
Previously served on an editorial board	14 (5.0)
Guest editor on an editorial board	52 (18.4)

^aGender identity, sexual orientation, and age data were missing for 27 participants.

^bRace and ethnicity data were missing for 29 participants. Participants reported race and ethnicity separately and could identify with multiple races; therefore, percentages may sum to greater than 100%.

^cOther self-reported races and ethnicities included mixed race, Jewish, and Caribbean.

^dCountry of origin data were missing for 48 participants.

^eBoard participation data were missing for 18 participants.

^fForty participants currently or previously serving on an editorial board also reported guest editor experience; 12 participants reported guest editor experience only.

Of the 32 respondents who reported as ever serving as editors in chief, 1 (3.1%) self-reported as African American/Black, 0 as Asian or Indigenous, 2 (6.3%) as Hispanic/Latinx, 1 (3.1%) as Middle Eastern/North African, and 27 (84.4%) as White (Table 2). Other leadership positions showed similar patterns. Among editorial board members, 9 (25.7%) self-reported as African American/Black, 6 (17.1%) as Asian, 4 (11.4%) as Hispanic/Latinx, and 21 (60.0%) as White.

Table 2. Demographics of Participants Who Endorsed Ever Serving on an Editorial Board (n = 111)^a.

Demographic	No. (%)
	Editorial board members	Guest editors	Assistant/associate editors	Deputy editors	Editors in chief
Ever servedb	35 (31.5)	12 (10.8)	15 (13.5)	3 (2.7)	32 (28.8)
Genderc
Cisgender men	14 (40)	3 (25.0)	6 (40.0)	1 (33.3)	25 (78.1)
Cisgender women	21 (60)	9 (75.0)	9 (60.0)	2 (66.7)	6 (18.8)
Nonbinary	0	0	0	0	0
Age, mean (SD) [range], yc	52.5 (15.3) [25-78]	48.0 (11.9) [33-65]	47.7 (12.5) [33-78]	50.3 (19.5) [28-64]	60.0 (9.2) [37-76]
Sexual orientationc
Heterosexual/straight	29 (82.9)	10 (83.3)	14 (93.3)	3 (100)	29 (90.6)
Gay/lesbian	5 (14.3)	1 (8.3)	1 (6.7)	0	1 (3.1)
Bisexual	0	1 (8.3)	0	0	1 (3.1)
Queer	1 (2.9)	0	0	0	0
Race and ethnicityd
African American/Black	9 (25.7)	6 (50.0)	2 (13.3)	0	1 (3.1)
Asian	6 (17.1)	0	2 (13.3)	0	0
Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander	0	0	0	0	0
Hispanic/Latinx	4 (11.4)	2 (16.7)	3 (20.0)	0	2 (6.3)
Middle Eastern/North African	2 (5.7)	0	0		1 (3.1)
Native American/Alaska Native	0	0	0	0	0
White	21 (60.0)	6 (50.0)	10 (66.7)	3 (100)	27 (84.4)
Other	1 (2.9)	0	0	0	0
Country of origine
United States	26 (74.2)	7 (58.3)	9 (60.0)	1 (33.3)	13 (40.6)
Other	8 (22.9)	4 (33.3)	5 (33.3)	2 (66.7)	6 (18.8)

^aOf 283 respondents, board position data were missing for 18 participants; 14 participants reported holding a board position but did not report position title.

^bParticipants were asked to report the board position they have held that gave them the most power/influence over editorial board member recruitment.

^cGender, age, and sexual orientation data were missing for 15 participants.

^dRace and ethnicity data were missing for 16 participants.

^eCountry of origin data were missing for 30 participants.

Discussion

These data suggest few scientists who are URM serve on editorial boards of psychiatry and neuroscience journals and even fewer serve in leadership roles. These inequities were more apparent when additional oppressed and marginalized identities, including gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, were considered. Given the urgency to dismantle structural racism in academic medicine,⁶ targeted efforts to promote diversity in editorial board composition are required. Journals should consider collecting and reporting self-identified demographic data of editorial board members, annually publishing data on race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status to hold editorial board leadership accountable for diverse representation. Adequate representation is needed to ensure appropriate breadth of expertise across the many domains where health inequities exist. While people of any race and ethnicity can and should be sensitive to such issues, individuals from oppressed and marginalized groups often have specific expertise, including lived experiences that underscore the need for such expertise.

Limitations include lack of a denominator for potential respondents and no information on response rates, which limits generalizability of the findings. Also, methodological challenges in data collection and sampling, owing to lack of existing infrastructure for collecting demographic data, led to high rates of missing data for race and editorial board service categories. Because the survey was anonymous, we cannot determine respondent source or compare nonrespondents. We did not assess rates of disability, and most respondents were from the US. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd; these circumstances could have affected response rates and biased responses.

Despite limitations, this is the first study that we are aware of that attempts to assess racial and ethnic representation of scientists who are URM on peer-reviewed journal editorial boards in psychiatry and neuroscience. Future research must examine intersectional identities in editorial board composition and leadership. To dismantle structural racism in academia, the true scope of the problem must be quantified.

Supplement.

eMethods.