Skip to main content

Working Toward Systematic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Practices at The Journal of Pediatrics

Published onFeb 08, 2022
Working Toward Systematic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Practices at The Journal of Pediatrics

Background 

The Journal of Pediatrics is a proprietary journal within the Elsevier portfolio of pediatric titles. The editorial team consists of an Editor, seven Associate Editors, ~40 Editorial Board members, and three Editorial Office professionals. A task force was established in Spring 2021 to evaluate The Journal’s policies and practices in relation to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This case study outlines The Journal’s progress to date.  

Process 

An open call was extended to all Associate Editors and Editorial Board members, and several individuals with subject matter expertise not affiliated with The Journal were invited to participate. The task force includes 12 members and monthly calls were scheduled. After the first meeting, five objectives with actionable outcomes were identified. We established small working groups for the five objectives and designated task force members to serve as leaders for each working group. The five objectives are listed below.  

  1. Communicate The Journal’s commitment to making improvements and real change in these areas 

  2. Diversify and broaden the pool of manuscript reviewers and the composition of the editorial board  

  3. Consider prospective collection of data on authors and reviewers to gauge and improve DEI 

  4. Review The Journal’s current policies in relation to the AMA reporting standards and determine updates/changes 

  5. Call for submissions of all article types that address DEI across the clinical and translational spectrum 

Progress to date 

Since the formation of the task force, progress has been made and several objectives completed. The task force drafted, revised, and finalized a special communication published in the September 2021 volume of The Journal.  

For objective #2, we quickly realized that a baseline had to be established before we could make recommendations about what steps could be taken to broaden and diversify our reviewer and editor pools. The assigned working group developed a survey based on existing models to be distributed among the Editorial Board that would allow Board members to anonymously self-report demographic data.  

The survey questions went through several rounds of revision and comment at both the working group level and task force level. Throughout the discussion, we recognized the importance of including a “prefer not to say” and a “prefer to self-describe" with an open text field as options in the possible choices for some questions. An example of the survey questions used is available below.  

Additionally, the task force highlighted the need to explain why we were interested in collecting these data as part of our goal to achieve an Editorial Board that is diverse as and representative of the field. A survey instrument was identified (REDCap) and the survey will be circulated among Editorial Board members in late Fall 2021. 

The working group for objective #3 encountered similar challenges in that we do not currently collect demographic data on authors or reviewers. Limitations around what data to collect and how to collect this information were discussed. Solutions to these issues are being considered and investigated at the publisher and industry level. Rather than re-inventing the wheel to establish our own journal-specific questions and incorporate them into Editorial Manager, the task force decided to defer these efforts until a publisher or industry standard is established.  

The Journal did not have any guidance relating to inclusive terminology and reporting standards on race and ethnicity. Based on the recommendations outlined by the AMA Manual of Style, 11th edition, the working group for objective #4 drafted, revised, and finalized new guidance for our Guide for Authors.    

Finally, we issued a call for papers on diversity, equity, and inclusion topics as part of a recently launched section, REACH: Reflections on Ethics and Advocacy in Child Health.  

Considerations 

Some of the objectives the task force developed were easier or quicker to accomplish than others. It was good to have a mix of these short- and long-term goals because completing objectives #1, #4, and #5 encouraged continued participation to complete objectives #2 and #3. 

Having a dedicated leader(s) and strong buy-in from the Editor(s) is necessary. Assigning tasks to specific members rather than asking for volunteers helped move the work forward. However, it was important to keep in mind that our Editors have only so much capacity and time to devote to volunteer efforts related to The Journal.  

Future Plans 

Now that most of the objectives of the task force are nearing completion, we have begun discussing next steps. We plan to consolidate the task force into a smaller standing group to continue current work, consider new issues, and serve as a resource for other Editors.  

Many ideas arose from the initial task force brainstorming sessions that we may consider pursuing in the future. These included developing a pediatrics-focused reviewer training and/or mentorship program, continuing to encourage submissions on DEI-related topics, and adding DEI-related terms and keywords to our classifications in Editorial Manager.   

Editors of The Journal present a manuscript writing workshop at the annual pediatrics conference. Based on the recommendations of the task force, the Editors plan to revamp the workshop and focus on reviewer training for 2022.  

Discussion 

The task force has made progress by identifying clear objectives, communicating these efforts to our readership and other stakeholders, and actively working toward the completion of the remaining objectives. The discussions during the task force meetings have been informative and productive, with good participation and engagement. We have strong buy-in from the Editor-in-Chief and committed task force participants, which has been constructive. We are cognizant that these efforts must be ongoing and will evolve over time as we work to better represent the diverse community we serve. 

Example of survey questions  

  1. What is your age? 

  • <35 

  • 35-44 

  • 45-54 

  • 55-64 

  • 65-74 

  • ≥75 

  1. What is your gender identity? Select all that apply. 

  • Male  

  • Female 

  • Non-binary/third gender  

  • Transgender 

  • Cisgender  

  • Agender  

  • Genderqueer  

  • A gender not listed  

  • Prefer to self-describe:_________  

  • Prefer not to say 

  1. What is your sexual orientation?  

  • Straight/Heterosexual 

  • Gay or Lesbian 

  • Bisexual 

  • Queer 

  • Asexual 

  • Prefer to self-describe:___________ 

  • Prefer not to say 

  1. Are you a person with a disability?  (Disability is defined by RCW 49.6.040 as the presence of a sensory, mental, or physical impairment that: (i) is medically cognizable or diagnosable; or (ii) exists as a record or history; or (iii) is perceived to exist whether or not it exists in fact.) 

  • Yes; please add any detail you feel comfortable sharing:___________ 

  • No 

  • Prefer not to say 

  1. In what country were you born?_______________________ 

  1. In what country do you live currently?__________________________ 

  1. Please indicate the race(s) and/or ethnicities with which you identify. Select all that apply. In the text box for each option you select, please provide as much additional detail around how you self-identify as you are comfortable sharing. 

  • American Indian or Alaska Native Person: __________ 

  • Asian: ____________ 

  • Black or African American: _______________ 

  • Hispanic or Latina/o/x: ______________ 

  • Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: ___________ 

  • White: _____________ 

  • Middle Eastern or North African:_____________ 

  • Some other race, ethnicity, or origin (please specify):________ 

  • Prefer to self-describe:_________ 

  • Prefer not to say 

  1. What is your role on the Editorial Board? 

  • Editor or Associate editor 

  • Editorial board member 

  • Editorial staff 

  • Other 

  1. How long have you been on or affiliated with the Editorial Board? 

  • 0-3 years 

  • 4-6 years 

  • 7-10 years 

  • 10+ years 

  1. Please share with us any feedback you have about this survey, including questions that were confusing or uncomfortable to answer. 

 

 

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?