Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Pathology working group review of histopathologic specimens from three laboratory studies of diclofenac in trout.

While the pathology peer review/pathology working group (PWG) model has long been used in mammalian toxicologic pathology to ensure the accuracy, consistency, and objectivity of histopathology data, application of this paradigm to ecotoxicological studies has thus far been limited. In the current project, the PWG approach was used to evaluate histopathologic sections of gills, liver, kidney, and/or intestines from three previously published studies of diclofenac in trout, among which there was substantial variation in the reported histopathologic findings. The main objectives of this review process were to investigate and potentially reconcile these interstudy differences, and based on the results, to establish an appropriate no observed effect concentration (NOEC). Following a complete examination of all histologic sections and original diagnoses by a single experienced fish pathologist (pathology peer review), a two-day PWG session was conducted to allow members of a four-person expert panel to determine the extent of treatment-related findings in each of the three trout studies. The PWG was performed according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Pesticide Regulation (PR) 94-5 (EPA Pesticide Regulation, 1994). In accordance with standard procedures, the PWG review was conducted by the non-voting chairperson in a manner intended to minimize bias, and thus during the evaluation, the four voting panelists were unaware of the treatment group status of individual fish and the original diagnoses associated with the histologic sections. Based on the results of this review, findings related to diclofenac exposure included minimal to slightly increased thickening of the gill filament tips in fish exposed to the highest concentration tested (1,000 μg/L), plus a previously undiagnosed finding, decreased hepatic glycogen, which also occurred at the 1,000 μg/L dose level. The panel found little evidence to support other reported effects of diclofenac in trout, and thus the overall NOEC was determined to be >320 μg/L. By consensus, the PWG panel was able to identify diagnostic inconsistencies among and within the three prior studies; therefore this exercise demonstrated the value of the pathology peer review/PWG approach for assessing the reliability of histopathology results that may be used by regulatory agencies for risk assessment.