“…Given the smaller number of BIPOC scholars in HDFS, editors of HDFS journals can keep the peer‐review process anonymous but not anonymous to race (i.e., color conscious vs. evasive) (Annamma et al., 2017) by acknowledging and accounting for the racial identity of authors and reviewers in relation to the peer‐review process (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2021; Baldwin, 1984; Buchanan et al., 2021; Roberts & Mortenson, 2022). The central aim is for journals to avoid review processes that are a dominated by “White habitus” (Bonilla‐Silva, 2023; Bourdieu, 1991), where the review process is shaped solely by the lives and behaviors of privileged, well‐connected White scholars (see Abo‐Zena et al., 2022; Kia‐Keating & Juang, 2022; Paton et al., 2020; Wray‐Lake et al., 2022b). One approach to partially counter the negative effects of White habitus in the peer‐review process is for editors to exercise their authority and apply a race‐conscious approach to the process by striving—to the best of their abilities—to have racial diversity among editorial board members and reviewers.…”