Position statement: Research and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in rural health journals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is time to plant a flag in the White soil of academic journal publishing and declare, ‘This discourse includes the cultural voices of Indigenous peoples’. Indigenous peoples11 We acknowledge the importance of the individual language and naming conventions of different Indigenous nations. This statement has used the term Indigenous peoples as defined by the United Nations. However, we respect the right of nations to determine, define and name their cultural identity as and when they choose. are almost invisible as academic authors in rural health journals. Occasionally, that indigeneity might be deduced from the institutional or organisational affiliation statements, or the acknowledgements, or the text of articles. Too frequently, it is not discernible in any way. In essence, Indigenous cultural identity is suppressed by the conventions of academic publishing. This sees author and subject credibility resting on Western views of provenance, including institutional affiliation, college membership, educational qualifications and disciplinary background. This research colonialism reflects a power imbalance that must end. We, as a consortium of three rural health journals,22 Australian Journal of Rural Health, Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine and Rural and Remote Health. believe that cultural heritage and cultural provenance are as important, if not more important, than Western views of provenance, regarding any research involving Indigenous peoples. We commit to developing a textual flag to signal to readers that the author is Indigenous, as denoted in our author list for this statement. Furthermore, our companion policy paper (to be published in the Australian Journal of Rural Health simultaneously with the Canadian Journal of Rural Health and Rural and Remote Health) lists additional considerations that, if implemented, would mean truly inclusive authorship, that is by, for and with Indigenous peoples. This signals that we are beginning a journey of truth-telling and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, a journey that does not merely begin with respecting Indigenous cultural identity. It also flags a movement towards an academic treaty where our wonderful kaleidoscope of knowledge radiates through all aspects of academic publishing. We have come together to declare our intention to publish ‘nothing about Indigenous peoples, without Indigenous peoples’. How this is specifically articulated in practice will vary by journal and nation,111 We acknowledge the importance of the individual language and naming conventions of different Indigenous nations. This statement has used the term Indigenous peoples as defined by the United Nations. However, we respect the right of nations to determine, define and name their cultural identity as and when they choose. but in essence, we will reject submitted papers that concern Indigenous communities but do not acknowledge an Indigenous author or provide evidence of a participatory process of Indigenous community engagement. While there might be a risk that this will reduce the already small volume of research about Indigenous communities, it will increase the quantity and quality of research done with Indigenous communities, and the relevance of those research contributions. Papers that do not meet our central criteria can be published elsewhere, or, frankly, not at all. We believe this approach is morally, ethically, culturally and scientifically correct, and we will promote and support Indigenous authors and promote rural research units to work respectfully with Indigenous communities. As a consortium, we choose to make our publications flagships for Indigenous cultural voices in rural health, and we look forward to increasing the range, variety and volume of the voices of Indigenous peoples in our field.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».