Clinton Schultz PhD, Victor Oguoma PhD, Justyce Pengilly MClinPsy, Pim Kuipers PhD
<p>The Editorial Board of the AJRH, as with the leadership of many other academic journals, is committed to decolonising, strengthening and showcasing Indigenous health research. We are committed not only to high academic standards, but also to act (and to be seen to act) with integrity and sensitivity. Recently, the AJRH has played a key role in charting ways of ensuring Indigenous authors are appropriately acknowledged.<span><sup>1</sup></span> We are currently exploring new ways of providing sustainable Indigenous oversight of the editorial process of manuscripts pertaining to First Nations people and health services. Our emerging challenge is how to ensure academic rigour and translational relevance, while ensuring culturally safe and optimal practices.</p><p>As with the majority of academic journals, one of the main strategies AJRH uses to ensure academic rigour and quality is peer review. Peer review aims to be an independent and confidential process (at the AJRH we use double anonymous reviewing), which assists in maintaining research integrity and quality. We use anonymous peer review to minimise bias and nepotism, and to build transparency and rigour.<span><sup>2</sup></span> However, the peer review process is not without limitations. It is a product of Western thought and priorities. It emerges from a particular scientific and epistemological understanding, and it may not be the best strategy in all instances.</p><p>For example, traditional peer review may not fit particularly well with Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. The anonymised and individual peer review process may not be consistent with more collectivist Indigenous approaches which prioritise collaboration and consensus. The challenge then, for the AJRH and other academic journals, is that this core process may not align well with Indigenous research methodologies, which prioritise relationality and reciprocity.</p><p>In response, two of our associate editors are looking into the potential of ‘Yarning’ as a way of reviewing manuscripts and research with Indigenous people and communities. Yarning is a cultural form of conversation.<span><sup>3</sup></span> It is rooted in First Nations epistemologies and ontologies. Yarning relies on the creation of a culturally safe space for sharing and learning and, in some cases, for reaching consensus. It aligns with Indigenous ways of doing, and usually comprises two-way transfer of knowledge and understanding. Importantly, the yarning process emphasises equality across participants and facilitators.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Yarning has already been recognised as a culturally appropriate process for engaging with Indigenous groups and individuals in conducting research, facilitating in-depth discussions and allowing for the collection of rich data.<span><sup>4</sup></span> We are not aware of its application to the review of research papers, but there are clear indications of its potential. For example, the authors of Ind
{"title":"Yarning for peer review","authors":"Clinton Schultz PhD, Victor Oguoma PhD, Justyce Pengilly MClinPsy, Pim Kuipers PhD","doi":"10.1111/ajr.13148","DOIUrl":"10.1111/ajr.13148","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Editorial Board of the AJRH, as with the leadership of many other academic journals, is committed to decolonising, strengthening and showcasing Indigenous health research. We are committed not only to high academic standards, but also to act (and to be seen to act) with integrity and sensitivity. Recently, the AJRH has played a key role in charting ways of ensuring Indigenous authors are appropriately acknowledged.<span><sup>1</sup></span> We are currently exploring new ways of providing sustainable Indigenous oversight of the editorial process of manuscripts pertaining to First Nations people and health services. Our emerging challenge is how to ensure academic rigour and translational relevance, while ensuring culturally safe and optimal practices.</p><p>As with the majority of academic journals, one of the main strategies AJRH uses to ensure academic rigour and quality is peer review. Peer review aims to be an independent and confidential process (at the AJRH we use double anonymous reviewing), which assists in maintaining research integrity and quality. We use anonymous peer review to minimise bias and nepotism, and to build transparency and rigour.<span><sup>2</sup></span> However, the peer review process is not without limitations. It is a product of Western thought and priorities. It emerges from a particular scientific and epistemological understanding, and it may not be the best strategy in all instances.</p><p>For example, traditional peer review may not fit particularly well with Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. The anonymised and individual peer review process may not be consistent with more collectivist Indigenous approaches which prioritise collaboration and consensus. The challenge then, for the AJRH and other academic journals, is that this core process may not align well with Indigenous research methodologies, which prioritise relationality and reciprocity.</p><p>In response, two of our associate editors are looking into the potential of ‘Yarning’ as a way of reviewing manuscripts and research with Indigenous people and communities. Yarning is a cultural form of conversation.<span><sup>3</sup></span> It is rooted in First Nations epistemologies and ontologies. Yarning relies on the creation of a culturally safe space for sharing and learning and, in some cases, for reaching consensus. It aligns with Indigenous ways of doing, and usually comprises two-way transfer of knowledge and understanding. Importantly, the yarning process emphasises equality across participants and facilitators.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Yarning has already been recognised as a culturally appropriate process for engaging with Indigenous groups and individuals in conducting research, facilitating in-depth discussions and allowing for the collection of rich data.<span><sup>4</sup></span> We are not aware of its application to the review of research papers, but there are clear indications of its potential. For example, the authors of Ind","PeriodicalId":55421,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Rural Health","volume":"32 3","pages":"417-418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajr.13148","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141297354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}