INANE Conference: Tuesday PM 8/5/25
Speakers:
Anna Valdez: Ph.D., RN, PHN, CEN, CFRN, CNE, FAEN, FAADN, Professor of Nursing at Sonoma State University and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Emergency Nursing
Carl A. Kirton: DNP, MBA, RN, ANP, FAAN, Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Nursing
Abstract: Ensuring inclusive, equitable, and bias-free peer review processes is an essential part of academic publishing. This session will provide a detailed overview of the newly developed “Guidelines for Conducting an Equity Review” document, including how to apply the guidelines during the peer review and editorial decision process. During the presentation, we will also highlight the findings from our phase two evaluation, conducted in the spring of 2025, which involved experienced editors and peer reviewers from a wide range of nursing journals.
INANE is partnered with the ANA’s National Commission to Address Racism in Nursing
Guidelines for Conducting An Equity Review
Presentation Summary:
Process – Phase 1: Development
Process – Phase 2: Evaluation
Results – Editor Feedback
- They wanted editors and peer reviewers re: the viability and feasibility to implementing these guidelines. They also invited stakeholders who are well-known for their work in this field.
- A robust process was used so that they knew they were getting it right
- If you review the guidebook yourself, please send the speakers your feedback
- They asked the INANE listserv, how comfortable are you with evaluating papers with an equity lens?
- 60% were “comfortable”
- 40% were “somewhat comfortable”
- They asked the INANE listserv, did you experience any challenges wit using the equity review guidelines?
- 60% said no
- 20% not sure
- 20% yes
- Feedback included: would need to make changes to author guidelines and that they found it helpful and were looking forward to implementing it
- Overall comments included:
- I want to integrate this into the review process, and I want it to be accessible to reviewers
- Concern about the length of it
- Consider an abbreviated checklist
- See if any sections could be combined or trimmed, for example, could there be one analysis section?
- They got some comments about the positionality of the editors (all parts of your identity and how they affect what you do)
Results- Peer Reviewer Feedback
- They asked peer reviewers, how comfortable they were with conducting a peer review with an equity lens:
- Overall, people were pretty comfortable
- They asked peer reviewers about challenges.
- Overall comments:
- How do I incorporate recommendations into my narrative statement? Do I use specific terminology
- The tool is valuable and thoughtful
- The tool is very easy to use
- In general, some thought the language could be simplified, because people are scared of saying the wrong thing
Results- Stakeholder Feedback:
- They asked subject matter experts about their overall feedback, and they said:
- Feedback was overall positive
- The opening instructions need a definition of health equity because the tool might not be fully understood by people without equity training.
- One reviewer identified that weight discrimination could be added
- One reviewer recommended including a statement that equity training is a useful precursor to using the guideline
- Need to define race and address “controlling for race” with the understanding that race is a social construct and that we are actually controlling for racism
- Two reviewers recommended more discussion about positionality and how it can change over time, and that authors should have to submit a positionality statement
- Language could be simplified to improve usability.
The Guideline
- Intended primarily for those who conduct and review research
- It follows the experimental/non-experimental study design
- It follows a checklist format
- Similar to common guidelines like CONSORT or STROBE
- Currently examines 22 critical elements of a paper
- Title and abstract
- Introduction
- Objectives
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- Other information
————————————–
Discussion with the Audience:
- Comment: This was written from a research reporting perspective, but it could even apply to clinical features.
- Dr. Kirton responded that the decision when they first got the group together was that we would start with guidelines for experimental/nonexperimental research design. Still, there will be opportunities in the future to develop guidelines for other types of research, etc.
- Dr. Valdez adds that you can use the guidelines however you want, and how to apply them within your journal. They can be applied widely. And if there is a section that does not apply to a particular type of paper/project, you can simply write “not applicable.”
- Comment: Consider using this guideline as part of peer review training!
- Question: To the point of simplifying the language and clarifying, did you take into consideration how other cultures define racism? Specifically because some journals are international.
- Dr. Kirton encourages international editors to read the guidelines and give feedback about how we can improve the guidelines in that respect.
- Dr. Valdez spoke about perhaps adding a disclaimer with this exact point, that we need to keep these different cultural lenses in our mind
- Question: Did you say the peer reviewer would write a positionality statement? Can you clarify?
- Dr. Valdez said that their guidelines did not include a positionality statement mandate, but some of the stakeholders recommended it. Positionality is “who you are.” For example, “I am a Latina, cis-gendered, disabled woman.” This came out of the idea of “health equity tourism.”
- Article on “Health Equity Tourism”
- Question: Have you considered a webinar?
- Dr. Valdez: That is a good idea, we will consider it for the implementation toolkit or an INANE webinar, etc. We are looking for a repository for where to put these resources.
- We hope to publish the article in early fall, so get your comments in soon!
- Feel free as editors to use our guide, but please don’t disseminate it yet!
- Question: Have you reached out to Peggy Chin for her expertise?
- Dr. Kirton: Yes she was a subject matter expert!
Your INANE 2025 reporter is Melissa Anne DuBois, BSN, RNC-OB, PhD Student.
Content for this post was obtained from the INANE 2025 website, the conference guidebook, internet searches, speaker submitted bios, and live reporting from each session. Any errors in content are purely accidental and not intended to offend. If you notice an error you would like corrected, please contact Melissa Anne at melissadubois2 at gmail dot com and she will be happy to make corrections.