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.
|Douglas Hartmann||University of Minnesota|
|Michael Omi||University of California-Berkeley|
|Mary Romero||Arizona State University|
|Rogelio Saenz||University of Texas-San Antonio|
|Adia Wingfield||Washington University in St. Louis|
|Katie Acosta||Georgia State University|
|Elena Ambrosetti||Sapienza University of Rome, Italy|
|Anna Amelina||Goethe University, Germany|
|Jenifer Bratter||Rice University|
|Tony N. Brown||Rice University|
|Shantel Buggs||Florida State University|
|Meghan Burke||University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign|
|Carson Byrd||University of Louisville|
|Mary Campbell||Texas A&M University|
|J. Scott Carter||University of Central Florida|
|Rosalind Chou||Georgia State University|
|Sharon S. Collins||University of Illinois at Chicago|
|Heather Dalmage||Roosevelt University|
|Pawan Dhingra||Tufts University|
|Marlese Durr||Wright State University|
|Philomena Essed||Antioch University|
|James Fenelon||California State University-San Bernardino|
|Abby Ferber||University of Colorado-Colorado Springs|
|Charles “Chip” Gallagher||La Salle University|
|Lorena Garcia||University of Illinois at Chicago|
|Julian Go||Boston University|
|Elizabeth Hordge-Freeman||University of Southern Florida|
|Matthew Hunt||Northeastern University|
|Kimberle Huyser||University of New Mexico|
|Mosi Ifatunji||University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill|
|Jose Itzigsohn||Brown University|
|Keri E. Iyall Smith||Suffolk University|
|Tahu Kukutai||National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis, New Zealand|
|Nancy Lopez||University of New Mexico|
|Cecilia Menjivar||University of California-Los Angeles|
|Mignon R. Moore||Barnard College-Columbia University|
|Wendy Leo Moore||Texas A&M University|
|Aldon D. Morris||Northwestern University|
|Myoung-Kyu Park||Seoul National University, Republic of Korea|
|Anthony Peguero||Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University|
|Whitney Pirtle||University of California-Merced|
|Bandana Purkayastha||University of Connecticut|
|Steven Ratuva||University of Canterbury, New Zealand|
|Rashawn Ray||University of Maryland-College Park|
|Victor Ray||University of Tennessee-Knoxville|
|Fernando Rivera||University of Central Florida|
|Leland Saito||University of Southern California|
|Louise Seamster||University of Tennessee|
|Saher Selod||Simmons College|
|Abigail A. Sewell||Emory University|
|Miri Song||University of Kent, UK|
|Stephen Steinberg||CUNY-Graduate Center|
|Bhoomi K. Thakore||Northwestern University|
|James Michael Thomas||University of Mississippi|
|Donald Tomaskovic-Devey||University of Massachusetts-Amherst|
|Vilna Bashi Treitler||University of California-Santa Barbara|
|Waqas Tufail||Leeds Beckett University, UK|
|William Tyson||University of South Florida|
|Nick Vargas||University of Florida|
|Salvador Vidal-Ortiz||American University|
|Peter Wade||University of Manchester, UK|
|Melissa Weiner||College of the the Holy Cross|
|Johnny Williams||Trinity College|
|Matt Wray||Temple University|
|Nira Yuval-Davis||University of East London, UK|
|Tukufu Zuberi||University of Pennsylvania|
All manuscripts must be submitted electronically via SAGEtrack’s ScholarOne Manuscripts. To access this system, go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sre. You will be required to register with the system before electronically submitting your manuscript to SRE.
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
It is the responsibility of authors to submit manuscripts in the proper Sociology of Race and Ethnicity (SRE) format (see below). Manuscripts not submitted in adherence to the length requirements or to SRE format will be rejected. Additional details on preparing and submitting manuscripts to SRE are published in the American Sociological Association Styles Guide, Sixth Edition, available from the ASA bookstore.
Length. Manuscripts submitted to SRE must not exceed 10,000 words in length (unless submitted for the Pedagogy Section – these should not exceed 3,000 words), including: (1) abstract, (2) text, (3) notes, (4) references, (5) tables, (6) figures, and (7) appendices. SRE will not accept any manuscript that exceeds these limits. Please keep in mind that if your tables are lengthy and/or you have horizontal tables, this will affect the page count and you may be asked to reduce the length of your manuscript.
Format. All pages must be typed and double-spaced (including notes and references). Margins must be at least 1 inch and no larger than 1.5 inches (i.e., line length must not exceed 6-1/2 inches wide, 9 inches tall). Please use Times New Roman font, 12-point type size. Manuscript files must be saved utilizing .doc or .docx extensions. The object is to provide reviewers and editors with easy-to-read text and space for notes.
1. The abstract must be fewer than 250 words and clearly articulate the research problem, the theoretical and methodological approach, and the key findings and arguments.
2. The text of the manuscript should begin on a new page headed by the full title. Notes, references, tables, figures, and appendices appear in separate sections following the text, in that order. Since manuscripts are evaluated through an anonymous peer review process, authors must remove identifying references or material. When citing your own work, please write “Smith (1992) concluded…,” but do not write “I concluded (Smith 1992)…” Please either blind or remove citations of working papers or papers in progress.
a. Headings and subheadings in the text indicate the organization of content. Generally, three heading levels are sufficient. See recent issues for examples.
b. Citations in the text should provide the last name of the author(s) and the year of publication. Include page numbers for direct quotes or specific passages. Cite only those works needed to provide evidence for your assertions and to refer to important sources on the topic. In the following examples of text citations, ellipses (...) indicate manuscript text:
· If author’s name is in the text, follow it with the year in parentheses: “Duncan (1959)…”
· If author’s name is not in the text, enclose the last name and year in parentheses: “… (Gouldner 1963).”
· Pages cited follow the year of publication after a colon: “…(Ramirez and Weiss 1979:239–40).”
· Provide last names for joint authors: “…(Martin and Bailey 1988).”
· For three authors, list all three last names in the first citation in the text: “…(Carr, Smith, and Jones 1962).” For all subsequent citations use “et al.” throughout: “…(Carr et al. 1962).” For works with four or more authors, use “et al.” throughout.
· For institutional authorship, supply minimum identification from the complete citation: “…(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1963:117).”
· List a series of citations in alphabetical order or date order separated by semicolons: “… (Burgess 1968; Marwell et al. 1971).” Use consistent ordering throughout the manuscript.
· Use “forthcoming” to cite sources scheduled for publication. For dissertations and unpublished papers, cite the date. If no date, use “n.d.” in place of the date: “…Smith (forthcoming) and Oropesa (n.d.).”
· For machine-readable data files, cite authorship and date: “…(Institute for Survey Research 1976).”
a. Notes should be numbered in the text consecutively using superscript Arabic numerals (see Number 3 in these guidelines for more information). If referring to a note earlier or later in the text, use parenthetical note: "...(see note 3)."
b. Equations in text must be typed. Use consecutive Arabic numerals in parentheses at the right margin to identify important equations.
2. Notes should be typed or printed, double-spaced, in a separate “NOTES” section and should appear after the text but before the references. Begin each note with the Arabic numeral to which it is keyed in the text. Authors should not use the “footnote” function in Word. Notes can:
1. explain or amplify text
2. cite materials of limited availability
3. append information presented in a table
a. Avoid long notes. Consider:
1. stating in the text that information is available from the author
2. depositing the information in a national retrieval center and inserting an appropriate note
3. adding an appendix
3. References follow the text in a separate section headed “REFERENCES.” All references cited in the text must be listed in the reference section, and vice versa. Publication information for each must be complete and correct. It is authors’ responsibility to make sure that all information provided in the reference section is complete and correct. List the references in alphabetical order by authors’ last names; include first names and middle initials for all authors. If there are two or more items by the same author(s), list them in order of year of publication. For repeated authors or editors, give the author’s (or editor’s) full name in all subsequent references. If the cited material is unpublished but has been accepted for publication, use “Forthcoming” in place of the date, and give the name of the journal or publishing house. For dissertations and unpublished papers, cite the date and place the paper was presented and/or where it is available. If no date is available, use “N.d.” in place of the date. If two or more works are by the same author(s) within the same year, list them in alphabetical order by title and distinguish them by adding the letters a, b, c, and so on, to the year (or to “Forthcoming” or “N.d.”). For works with multiple authors, only the name of the first author is inverted (e.g., “Jones, Arthur B., Colin D. Smith, and James Petersen.”). List all authors; using “et al.” in the reference section is not acceptable. A few examples follow. Refer to the American Sociological Association Style Guide and recent issues of SRE for additional examples:
Mills, Charles W. 1999. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bernard, Claude.  1957. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Translated by Henry C. Greene. New York: Dover.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2011. The Hispanic Population, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Twine, France Winddance. 1996. “Brown Skinned White Girls: Class, Culture and the Construction of White Identity in Suburban Communities.” Gender, Place, and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 3(2):205-212.
Goodman, Leo A. 1974a. “The Analysis of Systems of Qualitative Variables When Some of the Variables Are Unobservable. Part I—A Modified Latent Structure Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 79(5):1179–1259.
Goodman, Leo A. 1974b. “Exploratory Latent Structure Analysis Using both Identifiable and Unidentifiable Models.” Biometrika 61(2):215–31.
Stewart, Quincy Thomas. 2008. “Swimming Upstream: Theory and Methodology in Race Research.” Pp. 111–126 in White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology, edited by Tukufu Zuberi and Eduardo Bonilla Silva. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Charles, Maria. 1990. “Occupational Sex Segregation: A Log-Linear Analysis of Patterns in 25 Industrial Countries.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
e. Machine-Readable Data Files:
American Institute of Public Opinion. 1976. Gallup Public Opinion Poll #965 [MRDF]. Princeton, NJ: American Institute of Public Opinion [producer]. New Haven, CT: Roper Public Opinion Research Center, Yale University [distributor].
Miller, Warren, Arthur Miller, and Gerald Klein. 1975. The CPS 1974 American National Election Study [MRDF]. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
f. Electronic Sources:
American Sociological Association. 1997. “Call for Help: Social Science Knowledge on Race, Racism, and Race Relations” (ASA Action Alert, October 15). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Retrieved October 15, 1997 (http://www.asanet.org/racecall.htm).
Kao, Grace and Jennifer Thompson. 2003. “Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Educational Achievement and Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:417–42. Retrieved October 20, 2003 (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019).
4. Number tables consecutively throughout the text. Insert a note in the text to indicate the placement (e.g., “Table 1 about here”). Type each table on a separate page. Each table must include a descriptive title and headings for columns and rows. Do not use abbreviations for variable names or column and row headings within tables. Align numbers in columns by decimal. Gather general notes to tables as “Note:”; use a, b, c, and so on, for table footnotes. Use asterisks *, **, and *** to indicate significance at the p < .05, p < .01, and the p < .001 levels, respectively, and specify one-tailed or two-tailed tests. Do not photo-reduce tables. Tables must be in an editable format.
5. Number figures consecutively throughout the text. Insert a note in the text to indicate placement (e.g., “Figure1 about here”). Each figure should include a title or caption. Do not use abbreviations within figures. Figures must be executed by computer or by graphic artist in black ink. Contact the SRE office to discuss preferred file formats for computer generated files.
IMPORTANT: All figures (including all type) must be legible when reduced or enlarged to widths of 2-9/16 inches (one column width) or 5-5/16 inches (full page width).
PERMISSION: The author(s) are responsible for securing permission to reproduce all copyrighted figures or materials before they are published by SRE. A copy of the written permission must be included with the manuscript submission.
6. Appendices should be lettered to distinguish them from numbered tables and figures. Include a descriptive title for each appendix (e.g., "APPENDIX A. Variable Names and Definitions").
Cover Letter. Please attach in a separate document a cover letter to your manuscript that includes the full manuscript title as well as the name, affiliation, contact information, and a biographical brief for each author. When uploading this document, please ensure that it is uploaded as a supplementary document.
Resubmission Format. If submitting a revised manuscript, please ensure that your manuscript still adheres to all of the above guidelines. In addition, please ensure that the text of the manuscript is not highlighted, in a different text color, or bolded. Please ensure that your letter to the editor and authors is blinded with no author signature, on letterhead, or contains any identifiable information. Please do not upload this letter as a separate document, but copy and paste the text in the space provided in the submission portal.
Please ensure your manuscript:
- Is a word file (.doc or .docx)
- Conforms to the SRE and ASA style throughout
- Includes a title page attached in appropriate place(not as part of the manuscript)
- Includes title, short title, abstract, keywords
- Includes names, emails, mailing addresses, affiliations, surname designations, and biographies for all authors
- Includes any acknowledgements
- Notes are in separate section following text
- Includes references for all in-text citations, and in-text citations for all references
- Tables (if any) are editable, include captions, and are placed after references or in separate files
- Figures (if any) include captions, are placed after references (and tables in any) or in separate files
- All documents and communication (except for the title page) are blinded for review
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.
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.
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 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sre under "Instructions and Forms."