CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

1 - 2of2
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    Braiding Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences in the Alberta oil sands region: A systematic review
    FACETS • Vol. 8 • pp. 1 - 32
    The braiding of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences offers insights into ecology and has emerged as a way to help address complex environmental issues. We reviewed the publicly available ecological research involving the braiding of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences to support collaborative work in the Alberta oil sands region of Canada. We conducted a systematic review, coding for 78 questions in six categories: (1) literature search and bibliographic information; (2) research themes; (3) study setting and design; (4) knowledge systems; (5) power relationships, colonization, and ethical considerations in research; and (6) benefits and challenges of braiding. We identified six articles that braided knowledge, with those articles focusing on environmental management and monitoring for impacts of industrial activity in northern Alberta. Researchers used a broad range of approaches to gather Indigenous knowledge and scientific data and identified multiple challenges (e.g., asymmetries of power, resource availability, and funding) to research. Our findings show that more support is needed to foster, promote, and disseminate interdisciplinary collaborative work involving braiding. Additional support is also required to address Indigenous community research needs related to the assessment of environmental impact and reclamation, as well as the understanding of ecological threats across the region.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 14
    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.