About this session

Saturday, 10:20 AM - 11:50 AM

Breaking Barriers: Leveling Up Majority World Child Development Research in Peer-Reviewed Journals

Journal analyses have documented that child development research from the Majority World (Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean) continues to be highly underrepresented in our peer-review journals (Moriguchi, 2022; Nielsen et al., 2017), despite the well-recognized need for inclusivity to ensure a theoretically comprehensive and globally applicable developmental science. In a survey of scholars engaging in Majority World research, bias in the peer-review process and reviewers considering cultural research as unimportant were among the challenges identified (Raval et al., 2024). Thus, calls for a global science recommend diversifying editorial boards and the reviewer base to include scholars from the Majority World. In addition, training for editors and reviewers from the Minority World (North America, Europe, Oceania) to provide thoughtful and culturally sensitive feedback is critical.

In this conversation roundtable, we, the members of the International Affairs committee of SRCD, will discuss the following:

1. What are the common barriers to publishing Majority World child development research from developing manuscripts, soliciting and responding to reviews, and making editorial decisions? What are the challenges and roles of Minority World peer-reviewers and editors? (Panelists: Nazli Akay, Stephen Asatsa)
2. What are some suggestions and examples of identifying, monitoring, and minimizing bias, based on one’s personal cultural background and professional training experiences? What are some common tools for exploring our explicit and implicit biases? How can editorial teams work together to address them? (Panelists: Shuang Lu, Fernando Salinas-Quiroz)

3. Questions about how to evaluate the quality of research (panelists: Nazli Akay, Stephen Asatsa, Shuang Lu, Fernando Salinas-Quiroz)
a) How should reviewers and editors evaluate and provide feedback regarding literature review (adequacy, quality, contextualizing existing research) that is culturally relevant to the study context? (panelists: Fernando Salinas-Quiroz)
b) How should reviewers and editors evaluate the relevance of theory and provide feedback regarding grounding current research in theory? How should traditionally Minority World-based theoretical frameworks be applied to Majority World contexts? How do we reconceptualize what it means to be “theoretically innovative”?
c) How should reviewers and editors evaluate methodological rigor and provide feedback to enhance rigor for qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, intervention, and community-based participatory studies? How do we assess a study’s methodological strengths and limitations given the appropriateness to the study context?
d) How should reviewers and editors evaluate data analytic techniques used (statistical, qualitative) and provide feedback?
e) How should reviewers and editors evaluate and provide feedback regarding the interpretation of findings such that they do not perpetuate stereotypes about a group or promote deficit-based views?
f) How to provide overall manuscript suggestions that are contextually sensitive, and consider the heterogeneity within histories, social norms, cultural values, countries, and communities in the Majority World (e.g., refrain from suggesting to add measures standardized in the Minority World, to add a Minority World comparison group)?
g) What can action editors do to select reviewers with relevant expertise in Majority World communities? How do we build a more integrative global research network and a more diverse reviewer pool?

4. Questions about what action editors can do ((Panelists: Gustavo Carlo, Kathy Modecki, Vaishali Raval)
a) What can action editors do when reviewer feedback lacks contextual sensitivity or understanding of the Majority World community?
b) How might action editors consider reviewer recommendations (e.g., accept, revise, or reject) in reaching an editorial decision regarding a manuscript pertaining to the Majority World?
c) What actions can editor-in-chief take towards editorial board and reviewer training, towards diversifying the editorial team?

5. In what ways can the SRCD International Affairs Committee work with other SRCD committees to collectively advocate for advancing cross-cultural research of traditionally underrepresented populations, communities, and regions? (Panelists: Kathy Modecki, Vaishali Raval)

By discussing these common challenges and potential solutions for publishing Majority World research from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members’ perspectives, we aim to enhance researchers’ awareness, knowledge, and competency in writing and reviewing scholarly articles in more culturally sensitive ways. Our proposed roundtable aligns with SRCD’s strategic goal of “Advancing Developmental Science,” which involves supporting researchers’ efforts to collaborate, integrate, and communicate research across cultures and national borders.

Journal analyses have documented that child development research from the Majority World (Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean) continues to be highly underrepresented in our peer-review journals (Moriguchi, 2022; Nielsen et al., 2017), despite the well-recognized need for inclusivity to ensure a theoretically comprehensive and globally applicable developmental science. In a survey of scholars engaging in Majority World research, among the challenges identified were bias in the peer-review process and reviewers considering cultural research as unimportant (Raval et al., 2024). Thus, to promote a global science, diversification of editorial boards and the reviewer-base to include scholars with expertise in Majority World research is needed. In addition, training for editors and reviewers from the Minority World (North America, Europe, Oceania) to provide thoughtful and culturally sensitive feedback is critical.
In this conversation roundtable, we, the members of the International Affairs committee of SRCD, will discuss the ways in which Minority World reviewers could provide contextually relevant reviews of manuscripts reporting on child development research about the Majority World. Engaging the audience, we will discuss specific examples and ways to identify bias, monitor and minimize it, and enhance the quality of the reviews provided. We will discuss the ways in which action editors can engage in the editorial decision-making process from soliciting reviews to making a decision to ensure contextually relevant feedback is provided. Our overarching goal is to strengthen the peer-review process for Majority World child development research to reduce barriers to publishing this work. Journal analyses have documented that child development research from the Majority World (Africa, Asia, Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean) continues to be highly underrepresented in our peer-review journals (Moriguchi, 2022; Nielsen et al., 2017), despite the well-recognized need for inclusivity to ensure a theoretically comprehensive and globally applicable developmental science. In a survey of scholars engaging in Majority World research, among the challenges identified were bias in the peer-review process and reviewers considering cultural research as unimportant (Raval et al., 2024). Thus, to promote a global science, diversification of editorial boards and the reviewer-base to include scholars with expertise in Majority World research is needed. In addition, training for editors and reviewers from the Minority World (North America, Europe, Oceania) to provide thoughtful and culturally sensitive feedback is critical.
In this conversation roundtable, we, the members of the International Affairs committee of SRCD, will discuss the ways in which Minority World reviewers could provide contextually relevant reviews of manuscripts reporting on child development research about the Majority World. Engaging the audience, we will discuss specific examples and ways to identify bias, monitor and minimize it, and enhance the quality of the reviews provided. We will discuss the ways in which action editors can engage in the editorial decision-making process from soliciting reviews to making a decision to ensure contextually relevant feedback is provided. Our overarching goal is to strengthen the peer-review process for Majority World child development research to reduce barriers to publishing this work.

Session moderator
Dr. Vaishali V. Raval, Ph.D., Miami University, United States

Panelists
Dr. Nazli Akay, Ph.D., Middle East Technical University , United Kingdom
Shuang Lu, Ph.D., University of Central Florida , United States
Dr. Fernando Salinas-Quiroz, Ph.D., Tufts University , United States
Dr. Stephen Asatsa, Ph.D., The Catholic University of Eastern Africa , Kenya

⇦ Back to schedule