Integrating Indigenous Knowledge Into Peer Review Processes in Nigerian Environmental and Health Research
Abstract
Oludele M. Solaja1
Objective
Scientific peer review often excludes Indigenous knowledge (IK), favoring Western scientific norms. In Nigeria, valuable local insights on health and environmental practices are marginalized, limiting their impact and perpetuating epistemic injustice.1 Integrating IK into peer review can enhance research relevance, cultural acceptance, and credibility, providing region-specific solutions crucial for sustainable development in Nigerian communities. This research examines how IK can be incorporated into scientific peer review to remove epistemological racism and improve the representation and practicality of IK in Nigerian environment and health research.2
Design
The study follows a 3-phase approach: (1) literature search, (2) stakeholder consultation, and (3) development and pilot testing of guidelines. In phase 1, a comprehensive literature review of 142 peer-reviewed articles (identified via PubMed, Scopus, and African Journals Online) was conducted to identify gaps in IK recognition within environmental and health research in Nigeria. Phase 2 included 396 surveys, 30 semistructured interviews, and 3 focus group discussions involving Nigerian researchers, peer reviewers, and IK holders. This engagement was conducted to highlight cultural barriers and biases in existing peer review practices. Phase 3 involved developing standardized guidelines based on stakeholder feedback to incorporate IK into peer review, followed by pilot testing with a subset of 12 articles from 3 Nigerian journals (Nigerian Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology, FUTA Journal of Research in Sciences, Ibadan Journal of the Social Sciences) from April to June 2025 to assess feasibility and effectiveness. In this phase, structured reviewer and editorial feedback was collected and is currently being analyzed to evaluate key metrics, including reviewer satisfaction (measured through structured postreview surveys), inclusivity ratings (assessed via 5-point Likert scale responses and demographic tracking of reviewer diversity), and manuscript quality (evaluated by independent editorial panels comparing clarity, cultural sensitivity, and scientific rigor between IK-inclusive and conventional reviews).
Results
Among the 142 articles reviewed, only 18 (12.7%) referenced IK, and none demonstrated structured inclusion of IK in peer review or evaluation criteria. In total, 32 of 38 IK stakeholders (84.2%) and 50 of 64 researchers (78.1%) perceived current peer review practices as exclusionary, citing language bias, absence of culturally grounded criteria, and a lack of reviewers who were knowledgeable in IK.3 Pilot testing yielded the following outcomes: 19 of 24 reviewers (79.2%) reported increased clarity and confidence in evaluating IK-informed manuscripts; inclusivity ratings increased from a baseline mean of 2.8 to 4.3 on the 5-point Likert scale; and independent editorial panels reported that IK-inclusive reviews scored 25% to 30% higher in cultural sensitivity and contextual relevance without compromising scientific rigor. Stakeholders reported that integrating IK leads to a more holistic and locally resonant understanding of health and environmental challenges in Nigeria.
Conclusions
Integrating IK into peer review can make research validation more equitable and locally relevant, aligning with global calls for inclusivity in scientific processes. This framework, grounded in empirical findings, may serve as a model for adapting peer review standards to respect diverse knowledge systems and improve the societal impact of research.
References
1. Agrawal A. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev Change. 1995;26(3):413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
2. Smith LT. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books; 1999.
3. Nakashima D, Roué M. Indigenous knowledge, peoples, and sustainable practice. In: Timmerman P, ed. Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons; 2002:314-324.
1Department of Sociology, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria, solaja.oludele@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng.Conflict of Interest Disclosures
None reported.