ArticleThe American psychologist
Toward the advancement of equity in scientific publishing.
Article in The American psychologist. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Peer review represents the foundation and gatekeeper to scientific dissemination, making it among the most important points to improve the representation of members of diverse gender, racial/ethnic, and other sociodemographic groups. The American Psychological Association (APA) highlights equity, diversity, and inclusion among its guiding principles. APA journals publish a large volume of cutting-edge psychological research (processing 20,000 + submissions per year) and reach a wide audience and have the unique opportunity to contribute to APA's mission by disseminating data on the diversity of those involved in the production of psychological science. In this commentary, we highlight recommendations for actionable steps to promote greater equity in the peer review process. While our recommendations are not exhaustive, we hope that they are steps in the right direction and will contribute to conversations that have already begun regarding actions to address underrepresentation in the scientific process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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.