{"id":12436,"date":"2011-03-30T10:50:17","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T14:50:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/researchimpact.ydsinc.ca\/redefining-peers-redefinir-les-pairs\/"},"modified":"2021-11-23T15:55:16","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T20:55:16","slug":"redefining-peers-redefinir-les-pairs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/fr\/archive\/redefining-peers-redefinir-les-pairs\/","title":{"rendered":"Redefining peers \/ Red\u00e9finir les pairs"},"content":{"rendered":"

By David Phipps (ResearchImpact, York)
\nA narrow construction of peer and an entrenched culture of peer review constrain creativity and create barriers to more accessible research. That’s why we need the creativity of knowledge mobilization.<\/em>
\n <\/em>
\nUne conception \u00e9troite de ce que sont les pairs et une culture ancr\u00e9e de revue par les pairs contraint la cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 et cr\u00e9e des barri\u00e8res \u00e0 l’accesibilit\u00e9 de la recherche. C’est pourquoi nous avons besoin de la cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 de la mobilisation des connaissances.<\/em>
\n\"\"<\/a>This is the third blog I have written discussing alternatives to peer review. I’m not down on peer review. I’m up on alternatives like those I mentioned in Blogging vs. Peer Review<\/a> published on January 12 and The Art of Going Beyond Peer Review<\/a> published on March 3.
\nToday I have returned to a manuscript that was rejected (although invited for resubmission with revisions) from a peer reviewed journal because it did not conform to a narrow construction of scholarly communication. This narrow construction constrains creativity in research communications and prevents scholarly authors from expanding the reach and impact of their research. That’s the role of knowledge mobilization, to creatively fill the communication and dissemination gap created by a history and culture of peer review.
\nFunding agencies are exploring novel funding programs such as: NSERC I2I; CIHR Proof of Principle; CIHR Meetings, Planning and Dissemination; SSHRC Public Outreach and SSHRC Partnership grant (especially those with a connections<\/a> theme). Many of these funding programs involve non-academic stakeholders on the review committees. Scholars funded by these novel funding mechanisms are falling behind by continuing to limit the definition of peers to academic scholars. If the broader knowledge community gets to participate in peer review at the front end (grant funding) we need to find vehicles to support these peers at the back end (publishing and dissemination).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We need to redefine the concept of peers not to challenge our academic colleagues but to complement them. I publish in academic peer reviewed journals but I find it difficult to adapt my work to fit their narrow frameworks. I am not seen as a peer of the academic reviewers. But then they are not my peer either.
\nThere are a few examples where research dissemination has engaged non-academic peers in peer review. <\/p>\n