Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Integrative SciencesRemove filter
- Murray, Stuart JRemove filter
Journal Title
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J2
- Aiken, Alice1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Ansari, Daniel1
- Antle, Alissa N1
- Babel, Molly1
- Bailey, Jane1
- Bernstein, Daniel M1
- Birnbaum, Rachel1
- Bourassa, Carrie1
- Browman, Howard I1
- Calcagno, Antonio1
- Campana, Aurélie1
- Chen, Bing1
- Clements, Jeff C1
- Cobey, Kelly D1
- Collins, Karen1
- Connelly, Catherine E1
- Cristescu, Melania E1
- Denov, Myriam1
- DeRosa, Maria C1
- Dupont, Benoît1
- George, Eric1
Access Type
1 - 2of2
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
| Search Name | Searched On |
|---|---|
| [Subject Areas: Psychology] AND [Author: Fowler, Samantha A] (1) | 31 Mar 2025 |
| [Paper Type: Perspective] AND [Subject Areas: Integrative Sciences] AND [Author: Mu... (2) | 31 Mar 2025 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Nathan Young,
- Kathryn S. Peiman,
- Dominique G. Roche,
- Jeff C. Clements,
- Andrew N. Kadykalo,
- Jennifer F. Provencher,
- Rajeev Raghavan,
- Maria C. DeRosa,
- Robert J. Lennox,
- Aminah Robinson Fayek,
- Melania E. Cristescu,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Joanna Quinn,
- Kelly D. Cobey, and
- Howard I. Browman
This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.