Yarning for peer review

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.¹ 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.

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.² 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.

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.

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.³ 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.³

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.⁴ 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 Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standards (ICIRAS) have emphasised that critical reflection of power differentials is required across all levels of the research process including publication.⁵

To advance Indigenous health research, it will be important to create space within academic publishing for diverse ways of knowing and doing. The application of yarning to peer review may be an ideal way of exploring whether a research initiative is relevant and respectful of Indigenous knowledge and perspectives. It would be a means of considering the use of culturally appropriate language and the acknowledgement of First Nations contributors to a publication. Indeed, it may serve to foster more involvement of Indigenous communities in the research enterprise, as well as enhance the respectfulness of the review process.

We see considerable opportunity for proposing a form of peer review, which is more inclusive and culturally attuned but also deeply collaborative. We will inform readers as new developments emerge.

Clinton Schultz: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Victor Oguoma: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing. Justyce Pengilly: Conceptualization; writing – original draft. Pim Kuipers: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing.

A/Prof. Pim Kuipers is the Editor-in-Chief and Dr. Victor Oguoma and Dr. Clinton Schultz are Associate Editors of the Australian Journal of Rural Health.