Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.12.27.521686

Putting on academic armor: How Black physicians and trainees take stances to make racism visible amidst publishing constraints

Abstract

IntroductionWhile there are a growing number of empirical studies of Black physicians and trainees experiences of racism, there are still few accounts from a first-person perspective. These personal commentaries or editorials require taking a delicate stance, balancing the professional, social, and individual. Black authors in the medical publishing space, who already experience microaggressions and racial trauma in their work spaces, must put on their academic armor to further experience them in publishing spaces. Medicine and medical education interpellate each of us, including the authors and readers of this piece, as a particular kind of subject. Beginning with a narrative grounding in the authors personal stances, this study seeks to understand the stances Black physicians and trainees take as they share their personal experiences of racism while protecting the institution of medicine from racisms irreparable harms. MethodsThe authors searched four databases identifying 29 articles authored by Black physicians and trainees describing their experiences. During initial analysis, the authors identified three sets of discursive strategies: identification (introducing and tracking themselves throughout the article); intertextuality (dialoguing and drawing on other "texts" beyond the focus of the articles); and space-time (social constructions of space and time linked to a network of social practices). The authors used a Google form to capture these strategies and direct quotes from the articles. Throughout the study, the authors reflected on their own stances in relation to the experience of conducting the study and its findings. ResultsAuthors engaged in stance taking, which aligned with the concept of donning academic armor, by evaluating and positioning themselves with respect to racism and the norms of academic discourse in response to ongoing conversations both within medicine and in the broader US culture. They did this by (a) positioning themselves as being Black and, therefore, qualified to notice and name personal racist experiences while also aligning themselves with the reader through shared professional experiences and goals, (b) intertextual connections to other related events, people, and institutions that they-and their readers-value and (c) aligning themselves with a hoped-for future rather than a racist present. DiscussionBecause the discourses of medicine and medical publishing interpellate Black authors as Others they must carefully consider the stances they take, particularly when naming racism. The academic armor they put on must not only be able to defend them from attack, but help them slip unseen through institutional bodies replete with mechanisms to eject them. In addition to analyzing their own personal stance, authors leave readers with thought provoking questions regarding this armor as they return to narrative grounding.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Johnson, M., Maggio, L., Konopasky, A.. 2022-12-30. Putting on academic armor: How Black physicians and trainees take stances to make racism visible amidst publishing constraints. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.27.521686

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗