ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023
Racism and censorship in the editorial and peer review process.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indigenous excellence: confronting racism and complicity in peer review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Insufficient: A scoping review of structural racism and intimate partner violence in US-based immigrant communities of color.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Misapplication of Race in Editorial Decisions: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Case Reporting.Journal of Brown hospital medicine · 2025Article
- The association between racism and psychosis: An umbrella review.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Racial and ethnic socioenvironmental inequity and neuroimaging in psychiatry: a brief review of the past and recommendations for the future.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Naming racism as a root cause of inequities in palliative care research: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Racial discrimination and substance use among people of color.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2024Article
- Navigating Hostile Workplaces and Educational Spaces Within Health Services and Policy Research.Health equity · 2024Article
- The illusion of inclusion: contextual behavioral science and the Black community.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Minority-Serving Institution Disability and Rehabilitation/Health Research Capacity-Building and Infrastructure Model: An 8-Year Multi-Site Longitudinal Study.Journal of rehabilitation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychology aims to capture the diversity of our human experience, yet racial inequity ensures only specific experiences are studied, peer-reviewed, and eventually published. Despite recent publications on racial bias in research topics, study samples, academic teams, and publication trends, bias in the peer review process remains largely unexamined. Drawing on compelling case study examples from APA and other leading international journals, this article proposes key mechanisms underlying racial bias and censorship in the editorial and peer review process, including bias in reviewer selection, devaluing racialized expertise, censorship of critical perspectives, minimal consideration of harm to racialized people, and the publication of unscientific and racist studies. The field of psychology needs more diverse researchers, perspectives, and topics to reach its full potential and meet the mental health needs of communities of colour. Several recommendations are called for to ensure the APA can centre racial equity throughout the editorial and review process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.