| Title |
Reporting Race and Ethnicity in Genetics Research: Do Journal Recommendations or Resources Matter?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9596-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pamela Sankar, Mildred K. Cho, Keri Monahan, Kamila Nowak |
| Abstract |
Appeals to scrutinize the use of race and ethnicity as variables in genetics research notwithstanding, these variables continue to be inadequately explained and inconsistently used in research publications. In previous research, we found that published genetic research fails to follow suggestions offered for addressing this problem, such as explaining the basis on which these labels are assigned to populations. This study, an analysis of genetic research articles using race or ethnicity terms, explores possible features of journals that are associated with improved reporting of race and ethnicity in genetic research. A journal's expressed commitment to improving how race and ethnicity are used in genetic research, demonstrated by an editorial or in its instructions to authors, was the strongest predictor of following recommendations about reporting race and ethnicity. Journal impact factor had only a limited positive effect on attention to these issues, suggesting that editorial resources associated with higher impact factor journals are not sufficient to improve practices. Our findings reiterate that race and ethnicity variables are used inconsistently in genetic research, but also shed light on how journals might improve practices by highlighting the need for scientists to carefully scrutinize the use of these variables in their work. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 24% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 48% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,121,569
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#623
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,299
of 369,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.