Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9685775›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Medical Association1998

US health journal editors' opinions and policies on research in race, ethnicity, and health.

T Bennett, R Bhopal

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Medical Association, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T BennettDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 27599-7400, USA.
R Bhopal
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Editorial PoliciesEthnicityHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePolicy MakingRacial GroupsDecision MakingEthicsHumansJournalism, MedicalResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminology as TopicUnited KingdomBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

Identifiers

PMID9685775
PMCPMC2608355
OpenAlexW1599367175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.