A decolonized science requires bigger, bolder, and less incremental change: Commentary on Sharpe (2024)

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Scientific Publishing
• Open Science

Background:

• Recent discussions in psychology address editor bias and transparency.
• Sharpe's (2024) article highlights these issues within the open science era.
• There is a growing movement towards decolonizing science and increasing public accountability.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the adequacy of Sharpe's (2024) proposed model for addressing editor bias and transparency.
• To explore whether Sharpe's model operates at the appropriate level of analysis for systemic change.
• To propose an alternative framework for fostering a more decolonized and equitable scientific publishing environment.

Main Methods:

• The commentary utilizes an equity model to analyze Sharpe's proposed solutions.
• A critical review of existing literature on editor bias and transparency in scientific publishing.
• Development of a systems thinking approach as an alternative to individual-level interventions.

Main Results:

• Sharpe's (2024) individual-level model may not sufficiently address the systemic nature of editor bias and transparency.
• An equity model suggests that a broader, systemic perspective is necessary for meaningful change.
• A systems thinking approach offers a more comprehensive strategy for decolonizing science publishing.

Conclusions:

• Editor bias and lack of transparency require systemic, not just individual, solutions.
• Implementing a systems thinking approach can generate actionable strategies for a more equitable and decolonized scientific publishing system.
• Further research should focus on systemic interventions to enhance transparency and reduce bias in academic publishing.