Abstract
Background: Peer review in nursing privileges Western knowledge systems while marginalizing Indigenous, Global South, and community-based traditions. This colonial structure limits who contributes to nursing science, which methodologies are legitimate, and constrains culturally responsive care. Current practices exclude nurse researchers employing non-Western epistemologies, working in non-English languages, or prioritizing community-based approaches essential to addressing health disparities.
Purpose: This presentation examines peer review as a colonial mechanism and advocates for reforms democratizing nursing knowledge production. It explores how linguistic hegemony, methodological gatekeeping, and citation politics perpetuate epistemic injustice, and identifies alternative models from Latin America, Africa, and Indigenous communities fostering collaboration and health equity.
Methods: Using critical analysis grounded in decolonial theory, this work synthesizes scholarship from nursing research, Indigenous studies, postcolonial theory, and global health. The analysis examines validation systems prioritizing relational accountability, multilingual accessibility, oral traditions, and community-based validation.
Findings: Dominant peer review institutionalizes Western epistemologies through linguistic exclusion (English-only requirements devalue indigenous scholarship), methodological policing (dismissal of qualitative methods), and citational hierarchies (requiring Western frameworks reinforces dependency). Alternative models demonstrate pathways: Latin American bibliodiversity supports multilingual publishing; African Ubuntu emphasizes collective validation and oral transmission; Indigenous paradigms prioritize community consent and reciprocal relationships.
Implications for Nursing: Decolonizing peer review advances nursing's mandate for health equity and cultural safety. For education, this provides frameworks for training in diverse methodologies. For practice, it validates community-based research centering patient voices and indigenous healing. For leadership, strategies include: implementing multilingual policies; recognizing Indigenous methodologies; diversifying editorial boards; establishing paradigm-appropriate criteria; and creating decolonial funding. These reforms enable scholarship to reflect diverse populations, honor healing traditions, and advance health equity through culturally responsive knowledge production.
Notes
Presenter notes available in attached slide deck. To see the notes in Adobe Acrobat, go to Tools > Comment or look at your Layers Panel. If the notes were saved as comments or layers, you can toggle them visible.
References:
Chilisa, B. (2017). Decolonising transdisciplinary research approaches: An African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 12(5), 813-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0461-1
Crosschild, C., Bearskin, R. L. B., Miller, C., Bourque Bearskin, L., Graydon, M., Baldhead, S., Henderson, R. I., & Korchinski, M. (2021). Where is critical analysis of power and positionality in knowledge translation? Health Research Policy and Systems, 19, 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00726-w
Dutta, M., Zapata, D., Khadka, R., Thaker, J., Kaur-Gill, S., & Elers, C. (2021). Decolonizing open science: Southern interventions. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 803-826. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab027
Khan, S. A. (2022). Decolonising global health by decolonising academic publishing. BMJ Global Health, 7(3), e007811. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007811
Wilson, S. (2020). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Presenter-authored Article:
Iheduru-Anderson K (2026), "Decolonizing peer review: disrupting academic gatekeeping and reclaiming knowledge production". Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4 pp. 534–552, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-03-2025-0114
Sigma Membership
Alpha Psi
Type
Presentation
Format Type
Text-based Document
Study Design/Type
Other
Research Approach
Other
Keywords:
Professional Peer Review, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Publishing, Periodical Publishing, Publication Bias
Recommended Citation
Iheduru-Anderson, Kechi, "Decolonizing Peer Review: Dismantling Epistemic Gatekeeping in Nursing Scholarship" (2026). International Nursing Research Congress (INRC). 198.
https://www.sigmarepository.org/inrc/2026/presentations_2026/198
Conference Name
37th International Nursing Research Congress
Conference Host
Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Conference Year
2026
Rights Holder
All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record. All permission requests should be directed accordingly and not to the Sigma Repository. All submitting authors or publishers have affirmed that when using material in their work where they do not own copyright, they have obtained permission of the copyright holder prior to submission and the rights holder has been acknowledged as necessary.
Review Type
Abstract Review Only: Reviewed by Event Host
Acquisition
Proxy-submission
Date of Issue
2026-08-24
Decolonizing Peer Review: Dismantling Epistemic Gatekeeping in Nursing Scholarship
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Background: Peer review in nursing privileges Western knowledge systems while marginalizing Indigenous, Global South, and community-based traditions. This colonial structure limits who contributes to nursing science, which methodologies are legitimate, and constrains culturally responsive care. Current practices exclude nurse researchers employing non-Western epistemologies, working in non-English languages, or prioritizing community-based approaches essential to addressing health disparities.
Purpose: This presentation examines peer review as a colonial mechanism and advocates for reforms democratizing nursing knowledge production. It explores how linguistic hegemony, methodological gatekeeping, and citation politics perpetuate epistemic injustice, and identifies alternative models from Latin America, Africa, and Indigenous communities fostering collaboration and health equity.
Methods: Using critical analysis grounded in decolonial theory, this work synthesizes scholarship from nursing research, Indigenous studies, postcolonial theory, and global health. The analysis examines validation systems prioritizing relational accountability, multilingual accessibility, oral traditions, and community-based validation.
Findings: Dominant peer review institutionalizes Western epistemologies through linguistic exclusion (English-only requirements devalue indigenous scholarship), methodological policing (dismissal of qualitative methods), and citational hierarchies (requiring Western frameworks reinforces dependency). Alternative models demonstrate pathways: Latin American bibliodiversity supports multilingual publishing; African Ubuntu emphasizes collective validation and oral transmission; Indigenous paradigms prioritize community consent and reciprocal relationships.
Implications for Nursing: Decolonizing peer review advances nursing's mandate for health equity and cultural safety. For education, this provides frameworks for training in diverse methodologies. For practice, it validates community-based research centering patient voices and indigenous healing. For leadership, strategies include: implementing multilingual policies; recognizing Indigenous methodologies; diversifying editorial boards; establishing paradigm-appropriate criteria; and creating decolonial funding. These reforms enable scholarship to reflect diverse populations, honor healing traditions, and advance health equity through culturally responsive knowledge production.
Description
Nursing peer review excludes Indigenous and Global South researchers through linguistic barriers, methodological bias, and citational gatekeeping. This presentation examines how these practices perpetuate epistemic injustice and proposes reforms: multilingual policies, diverse methodologies recognition, and inclusive editorial practices. Drawing on Latin American and African models, attendees gain actionable strategies to democratize knowledge production and advance health equity globally.