It’s right that all with a legitimate interest in research contribute to its design, review, conduct and dissemination. Few would argue but, in accepting it, we need a process to allow us to resolve our differences.
At this link, I describe a practical and simple approach to help reach agreement and ensure differences are less likely to be sources of friction, rather opportunities to learn, build trust and improve both research and its review.
The model is built on the proposition that our deliberations centre around our “early or personal views”. We bring these to any debate, it’s where we start. If all personal views are in accord, the decision is likely made; little more need be done. If, however, there is disagreement we need to go further. Review needs to turn to more objective “external referents” - we could list as 6 Es
ETHICAL THEORY:EMPATHY :EXPERTISE AND GUIDANCE:EXPERIENCEEVIDENCEEXPEDIENCY:
I'd be interested in views and how to improve it!