Street Jackie, Baum Fran, Anderson Ian P S
Department of Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, Discipline of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2009 Feb 13;7:2. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-2.
There has been considerable examination and critique of traditional (academic) peer review processes in quality assessment of grant applications. At the same time, the use of traditional research processes in Indigenous research has been questioned. Many grant funding organisations have changed the composition of their peer review panels to reflect these concerns but the question remains do these reforms go far enough? In this project we asked people working in areas associated with Aboriginal health research in a number of capacities, their views on the use of peer review in assessing Indigenous research proposals.
In semi-structured interviews we asked 18 individuals associated with an Australian Indigenous research funding organisation to reflect on their experience with peer review in quality assessment of grant applications. We also invited input from a steering group drawn from a variety of organisations involved in Aboriginal research throughout Australia and directly consulted with three Aboriginal-controlled health organisations.
There was consensus amongst all participants that traditional academic peer review is inappropriate for quality assessment in Indigenous research. Many expressed the view that using a competitive grant review system in Aboriginal health was counterintuitive, since good research transfer is based on effective collaboration. The consensus within the group favoured a system which built research in a collaborative manner incorporating a variety of different stakeholders in the process. In this system, one-off peer review was still seen as valuable in the form of a "critical friend" who provided advice as to how to improve the research proposal.
Peer review in the traditional mould should be recognised as inappropriate in Aboriginal research. Building research projects relevant to policy and practice in Indigenous health may require a shift to a new way of selecting, funding and conducting research.
在科研基金申请的质量评估中，传统（学术）同行评议流程受到了大量审视和批评。与此同时，传统研究流程在原住民研究中的应用也受到了质疑。许多科研基金资助机构已经改变了同行评议小组的构成，以反映这些问题，但问题仍然存在，即这些改革是否足够深入？在这个项目中，我们询问了多位以不同身份从事与原住民健康研究相关领域工作的人员，了解他们对在评估原住民研究提案时使用同行评议的看法。
在半结构化访谈中，我们询问了18位与澳大利亚一个原住民研究资助组织有关联的人员，让他们分享在科研基金申请质量评估中进行同行评议的经验。我们还邀请了一个由澳大利亚各地参与原住民研究的不同组织组成的指导小组提供意见，并直接与三个由原住民控制的健康组织进行了磋商。
所有参与者一致认为，传统学术同行评议不适用于原住民研究的质量评估。许多人表示，在原住民健康领域使用竞争性科研基金评审系统有违常理，因为良好的研究转化基于有效的合作。小组内的共识倾向于一种以合作方式开展研究的系统，该过程纳入了各种不同的利益相关者。在这个系统中，一次性的同行评议仍被视为有价值的，其形式是作为“关键伙伴”，就如何改进研究提案提供建议。
应认识到传统模式的同行评议不适用于原住民研究。开展与原住民健康政策和实践相关的研究项目可能需要转向一种选择、资助和开展研究的新方式。
