Peer review, the process of having your research scrutinized by experts in the same field, is widely regarded as a cornerstone of scientific publication. Peer reviewers are, in a way, gatekeepers of science. They help filter out unreliable or poor-quality science and improve the quality of works that are eventually published.

For the most part, these expert gatekeepers are researchers themselves. When it comes to research involving or having implications for communities, should those experts include non-university-trained researchers with practice, professional, or lived experience, or traditional or local knowledge?

Scientific knowledge is not the only knowledge

Modern-day science “is founded on Western European ideals of knowledge production, which have become very Imperial,” says Dr. Max Liboiron, Associate Professor of Geography at Memorial University. Among other issues, Liboiron explains that this imperialistic outlook has perpetuated the notion that the scientific process is the only way to acquire data and produce knowledge. On the other hand, local and traditional knowledge are considered less robust. “This idea that the scientific method is the only way to get to the ‘truth’ just doesn’t hold up,” says Melanie Slavitch, Director of Integrity and Engagement at Canadian Science Publishing.

…

Read the full story at Canadian Science Publishing.