The American Journal of Ophthalmology will revise its Guidelines for Authors to reflect the widely accepted uses of terminology for “race” and “ethnicity.” These updates will mirror those in the Inclusive Language section of the AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors, 11th edition , subsection 11.2.3 Race and Ethnicity, which is accessible through the JAMA Ophthalmology Instructions for Authors under Reporting Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants. A link to a Summary Guide for Preferred Terms When Reporting Race and Ethnicity is also available on this website. ,,,
A recent study determined that nonadherence to the AMA Manual of Style for the use of “race” and “ethnicity” among 3 high-impact English-language ophthalmology journals—the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology , and Ophthalmology —was substantial. Of 285 articles that reported race, ethnicity, or both, 159 (55.8%) reported “race,” 155 (55.4%) “ethnicity,” and 106 (37.2%) “race/ethnicity” as 1 category. Race was misclassified as ethnicity or vice versa in 54 articles (19%); 3 (5.6%) used primary data sets, 13 (24.1%) used secondary data sets, and 38 (70.4%) did not specify.
As “race” and “ethnicity” are social constructs without biological, genetic, or scientific meaning, the American Journal of Ophthalmology aims to provide an unambiguous path for clear reporting to prospective authors and reviewers.
To assist in meeting our goals of adherence, the following 10 general guidelines are offered:
-
1.
Did you describe why data on “race,” “ethnicity,” or both were collected?
-
2.
Did you describe how “race,” or “ethnicity,” or both were used in your study?
-
3.
Did you describe who determined “race,” “ethnicity,” or both—the patient (self-determined), medical records, or census reports—and how that information was collected?
-
4.
Did you specify whether this classification was required by a third-party funding source, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, or the National Science Foundation?
-
5.
Did you provide a specific geographic association when appropriate; for example, instead of “Asian,” did you provide a specific geographic location, such as Korean, Japanese, or Cambodian?
-
6.
Did you capitalize the names of groups, for example, African American, American Indian, Black, White, Latino?
-
7.
Did you use race or ethnicity as a noun? Is so, then this should be changed to the adjectival form, for example, African American.
-
8.
Did you list categories of “race” and “ethnicity” in alphabetical order in the result section and avoid the use of the term “minorities”?
-
9.
Did you avoid the use of “others” when describing categories or race or ethnicity?
-
10.
If you used ancestry-related terminology, was its use supported by genealogical or quantitative genetic data? “Ancestry” is not a substitute for “race” or “ethnicity.”
Authors should understand the importance of these standards in preparing their work and consider compliance with the guidelines compulsory. Failure to do so will result in a request for revision or rejection of their submission.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
