You are here

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity

An official journal of the American Sociological Association
Other Titles in:

eISSN: 23326506 | ISSN: 23326492 | Current volume: 7 | Current issue: 3 Frequency: Quarterly

The official journal of ASA’s Section for Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity publishes the highest quality, cutting-edge sociological research on race and ethnicity regardless of epistemological, methodological, or theoretical orientation. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity provides a fulcrum upon which sociologically-centered work will swing as it also seeks to provide new linkages between the discipline of sociology and other disciplines and areas where race and ethnicity are central components.

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, published four times per year, is devoted to publishing the finest cutting-edge, critical, and engaged public sociological scholarship on race and ethnicity.

Each issue is organized around a core group of original research articles. Depending on the length of the articles, each issue will have approximately nine or ten of these articles. Original articles, of 8,000 to 10,000 words, will represent rigorous sociological research in the sociology of race and ethnicity, broadly conceptualized, with varying methodologies. We are also very interested in publishing theoretically important pieces. The journal also includes a section that features pedagogical application pieces devoted to the teaching of race and ethnicity – “Race and Ethnicity Pedagogy” – as well as Book Reviews and a section on Books of Note.

We are currently welcoming submissions of:

o Regular length journal articles (8,000-10,000 words)

o Shorter pieces on race and ethnicity pedagogy (3,000 words)

The journal’s co-editors, associate editors, and editorial board members are committed to creating a high quality outlet for the most important work in the sociology of race and ethnicity, through timely and constructive peer reviews, careful and engaging editorial decision-making, as well as drawing from all epistemological, theoretical, and methodological perspectives and approaches.

The official journal of ASA’s Section for Racial and Ethnic Minorities, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity publishes the highest quality, cutting-edge sociological research on race and ethnicity regardless of epistemological, methodological, or theoretical orientation. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity provides a fulcrum upon which sociologically-centered work will swing as it also seeks to provide new linkages between the discipline of sociology and other disciplines and areas where race and ethnicity are central components.

David Brunsma Virginia Tech, USA
David G. Embrick University of Connecticut, USA
Book Review Editor
Steve Garner Cardiff University, UK
Pedagogy Editor
Hephzibah V. Strmic-Pawl Manhattanville College
Deputy Editors
Douglas Hartmann University of Minnesota
Michael Omi University of California-Berkeley
Mary Romero Arizona State University
Rogelio Saenz University of Texas-San Antonio
Adia Harvey Wingfield Washington University
Social Media Coordinator
Kaitlyne Motl Washington University in St. Louis
Editorial Board Members
Felicia Arriaga Appalachian State University
Asad L. Asad Stanford University
James T. Baker Memorial University of Newfoundland
Angie Beeman Baruch College
Stephanie A. Bohon University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Rachelle Brunn-Bevel Fairfield University
Kelsy Burke University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
Melanie E. L. Bush Adelphi University
Juan José Bustamante University of Arkansas
Ben Carrington University of Southern California
Michelle Marie Christian University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Emmie JoAnne Cochran-Jackson Georgia Gwinnett College
Barbara Harris Combs Clark Atlanta University
Jennifer Correa Texas A&M University-College Station
Tressie Cottom University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Tomeka M. Davis Georgia State University
Amon S. Emeka Skidmore College
Luigi G. Esposito Barry University
Grégory Giraudo-Baujeu Laboratorie Triangle
Tomika Greer University of Houston
Daina Cheyenne Harvey College of the Holy Cross
Terrence D. Hill University of Arizona
Daniel Hirschman Brown University
Michael Hughes Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Joseph Oscar Jewell Texas A&M University-College Station
Verna M. Keith University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA
Nazli Kibria Boston University
Jae Kyun Kim Davidson College
Elizabeth Korver-Glenn University of New Mexico-Albuquerque
Rory Kramer Villanova University
SunAh Marie Laybourn University of Memphis
Amanda Evelyn Lewis University of Illinois-Chicago
Cameron D. Lippard Appalachian State University
George Lipsitz University of California-Santa Barbara
Mara Loveman University of California-Berkeley
Sarah Mayorga University of Massachusetts-Boston
Eileen Díaz McConnell Arizona State University-Tempe
Amy D. McDowell University of Mississippi
Dwanna McKay Colorado College
Cassi Ann Meyerhoffer Southern Connecticut State University
Jennifer Mueller Skidmore College
Antonia M. Randolph University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Ashley Veronica Reichelmann Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Theresa Rocha Beardall Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Jiannbin Lee Shiao University of Oregon
James Michael Thomas University of Mississippi
Ted Thornhill Florida Gulf Coast University
Monica M. Trieu Purdue University
Megan R. Underhill University of North Carolina, Asheville
Rhys H. Williams Loyola University-Chicago
Jennifer Lynn Padilla Wyse Widener University
Ruth E. Zambrana University of Maryland
  • ProQuest
  • Electronic Submission

    All manuscripts must be submitted electronically via SAGEtrack’s ScholarOne Manuscripts. To access this system, go to You will be required to register with the system before electronically submitting your manuscript to SRE.

    Manuscript Preparation Guidelines

    Please go to this link to read the SRE Manuscript Preparation Guidelines.

    Guidelines for SRE authors can also be found on our SAGE Track site under "Instructions and Forms."


    All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. 

    All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

    Please supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review.

    All submitting authors are expected to abide by the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics (2018). Submission of a manuscript to another professional journal while it is under review by an ASA journal is regarded as unethical. Significant findings or contributions that have already appeared (or will appear) elsewhere must be clearly identified. All persons who publish in ASA journals are required to abide by ASA guidelines and ethics policies regarding plagiarism and other ethical issues. This requirement includes adhering to ASA’s stated policy on data-sharing: “As a regular practice, sociologists share data and pertinent documentation as an integral part of a research plan. Sociologists generally make their data available after completion of a project or its major publications, except where proprietary agreements with employers, contractors, or clients preclude such accessibility or when it is impossible to share data and protect the confidentiality of the research participants (e.g., field notes or detailed information from ethnographic interviews).”

    Sociology of Race and Ethnicity requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading. Please visit the Funding Acknowledgements page on the SAGE Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    Declaration of Conflicting Interests:
    Sociology of Race and Ethnicity encourages authors to include a declaration of any conflicting interests and recommends you review the good practice guidelines on the SAGE Journal Author Gateway.

    Reviewer Guidelines

    Thank you for agreeing to review a manuscript for Sociology of Race and Ethnicity (SRE). Reviewing peer manuscripts is one of the cornerstones upon which our discipline is built. As such, it is very important that you take reviewing seriously. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity publishes only the best sociological work in the study of race and ethnicity – regardless of theoretical, epistemological, and methodological orientation. As a peer reviewer, you should reap intellectual benefits of the review process, benefit from reading the most cutting-edge research in the sociology of race and ethnicity, and have the additional satisfaction of constructively assisting the author in making their manuscript the strongest and most contributive it can be. All of this emerges from your prompt, full, and constructive peer review of the manuscript.

    In addition to publishing original full-length manuscripts, SRE also publishes pieces on the pedagogy of sociology of race and ethnicity. If you are reviewing for this section, please note that the Pedagogy Section of Sociology of Race and Ethnicity provides a space dedicated to publishing cutting-edge work related to the teaching of the sociology of race and ethnicity, from introductory undergraduate courses to advanced graduate courses. Manuscripts should not exceed 2500- 3000 words in length, including references and footnotes. Papers might address theory, teaching assessment and reflection, analysis of resources, class exercises, service learning or a combination of these topics. All submissions should be clearly informed by the current literature, and (if applicable) provide evidence of teaching effectiveness.

    Recently, the American Sociological Association published an article on the best practices of reviewers in the discipline (Brunsma, Prasad, and Zuckerman 2013). What the authors found is summarized here:

    • The average time spent on reviewing manuscripts was 3.4 hours with fairly wide variation. Often this variation depends on the qualities of the manuscript;
    • Related, the best reviews tend to be ones that are done fairly soon after agreeing to do the review, instead of awaiting the final reminder;
    • Lengths of reviews range from 1-3 single-spaced documents;
    • Those who review many manuscripts have found that it is better to write the review with the “forest” in mind – the big picture, central issues and arguments in the manuscript, while not forgetting the “trees.” In other words, long lists of negative and problematic details without the bigger picture, makes the reviews less useful for the author;
    • Importantly, they found that reviews that are constructive, kind, supportive, are much more useful than those that are destructive, mean, etc. In other words, review unto others as you would have them review unto you.

    Their conclusion was this:

    “Although the responses do not reveal a silver bullet that can magically reduce manuscript review times, one element of good practice is clear: when you agree to do a review, actually put into your schedule the time that it will take to do it (three to four hours on average). It may be helpful to both author and reviewer if reviewers keep comments to big picture, substantive issues, particularly ‘how the argument holds together; connections between argument and analysis; methodological clarity and appropriateness.’”

    At Sociology of Race and Ethnicity we agree with these sentiments of best reviewing practices and believe this will lead to shorter review times, stronger reviews, and, ultimately, a much healthier journal with indeed the best sociological research in race and ethnicity.

    One of the top (and most effective) journals in our discipline is Gender & Society. What follows is drawn heavily from their Guidelines for Gender & Society Reviewers (2011). These guidelines provide more specific advice for reviewing manuscripts in a journal that desires not only the strongest reviews, but also the most constructive, supportive, and kind ones. 

    • First, read the paper;
    • Begin by identifying the paper’s aims, as you see them (this may differ from the author’s statement), clearly stating what the paper argues, and what its contribution is meant to be. This should be one or two sentences that help the editor and author know whether the paper’s main point has come across. In addition, note the strengths of the paper (even if you do not think the paper as a whole is strong);
    • Next, present the comments you see as most central to an effective revision of the paper. As Ferree (2004) notes, the core of the review should identify whether the research question contributes to larger theory, whether the analysis actually answers the research question, and whether the conclusions flow from the analyses. Identifying weaknesses can help the author craft a stronger paper, which sometimes means reframing the piece theoretically, refocusing the question, or reinterpreting the analysis; 
    • Here, you want to provide clear advice about how the author might address the problems you have identified or the questions you have raised. For example, if you feel the author is missing crucial references that would help them build a better argument, provide those references; if you think the author needs to provide more information about methods, explain what is missing; if you have problems with the analyses or feel that they are not persuasive enough, explain how the analyses could become more persuasive. Do not be overly specific and nitpicky, rewrite the paper for the author, or flood the author with many pages of comments;
    • End with the small points that will not dramatically change the paper’s form or argument, such as formatting of tables or figures, excessive use of jargon, writing errors, or other minor changes. Reviewers need not provide line-by-line editing. The journal will help with copy-editing the manuscript – the reviewer’s time and attention is better spent on ensuring that the argument is sound; 
    • After writing the review, go back through it and edit out any language that seems emotionally laden. For example, rather than saying “This paper is terrible,” you might note, “This paper has weaknesses in both its theoretical framework and its empirical analyses,” or even “While focused around a very interesting case, this paper currently has weaknesses in both its theoretical framework and its empirical analyses.” Using neutral or supportive language will make the author much more likely to heed your comments. You may indeed feel that the paper is terrible, and that the author has wasted your time and energy. But that frustration shouldn't spill into your review. The goal is to improve the paper. Very occasionally, the reviewer may be so at odds with a paper that it is difficult to write a fair review. In this case, be honest with the editor and author about the intellectual disagreement that affects your reading of the paper;
    • Finally, make sure that your review does not notify the author of your recommendation (as the final call is the editor’s); if recommending a rejection, feel free to list a more appropriate journal.

    The best review is a constructive review that truly betters the paper. Thank you so much for taking part in this work for the journal!

    Guidelines for Sociology of Race and Ethnicity reviewers can also be found on our SAGEtrack site under "Instructions and Forms."


    As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process SAGE is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID. ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized.

    The collection of ORCID iDs from corresponding authors is now part of the submission process of this journal. If you already have an ORCID iD you will be asked to associate that to your submission during the online submission process. We also strongly encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID ID to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account and our systems are automatically updated. Your ORCID iD will become part of your accepted publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID iD is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.

    If you do not already have an ORCID iD please follow this link to create one or visit our ORCID homepage to learn more.

    Individual Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

    Institutional Subscription, E-access

    Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

    Individual, Single Print Issue

    Student Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)