New research is calling for a fundamental shift in how Australian universities and scientists publish research that draws on Indigenous Knowledges, warning that current academic practices risk sidelining First Nations authority while benefiting from their expertise.
The term Indigenous Knowledges refers to the sum of the understandings, skills, and philosophies developed by Indigenous societies with long histories of interaction with and custodianship of their natural surroundings.
The study led by Flinders University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), published as a major perspective piece on Monday, argues Indigenous groups must be treated as active partners in research publications; not just contributors acknowledged in footnotes or 'personal communications'.
As governments, funding bodies and institutions increasingly emphasise Indigenous engagement, the authors — a collective of Traditional Owners, non-Indigenous and Indigenous researchers in ecology, archaeology, anthropology, history, and law, experts in Indigenous relations, and librarians based in Australia — say publication practices have failed to keep pace, leaving communities without real control over how their Knowledges are used, cited, or shared.
Indigenous Knowledges already underpin some of the country's most important research, from cultural fire management and biodiversity conservation to marine science and climate adaptation. Yet the research finds that while scientists frequently rely on these Knowledges, there are few formal systems to ensure Indigenous consent, authority, and data sovereignty are respected once findings are published.
Study co-lead author, Christine Barry, a PhD candidate with AIMS, said "Indigenous Knowledges are not historical artefacts, they are living, evolving systems of knowing that are actively shaping contemporary science, but the way research is published often obscures that reality".
The paper focuses on Australia's First Nations communities, which include more than 250 distinct language groups with their own governance structures, cultural protocols, and systems of authority.
The research concludes that a single national or international citation standard is not only impractical, but "potentially harmful", because it risks flattening this diversity and reproducing colonial power imbalances within academia.
Instead, the authors propose a "dynamic, community-led approach" that embeds Indigenous consent and decision-making throughout the research and publication process. That process includes recognising when Indigenous groups prefer co-authorship over citation, when Knowledges should be attributed to Country (the ancestral lands, waterways, seas, and skies to which a particular Indigenous group is connected and belongs, and of which it is custodian) rather than individuals, and when certain information should not be published at all.
The paper points to long-term collaborations that show what good practice can look like when Indigenous groups are involved from the outset.
Co-lead study author Corey Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Professor of Global Ecology from Flinders University, cited the positive example of Flinders University's maritime archaeology work led by Professor Jonathan Benjamin in collaboration with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation in the Pilbara, "where research has been shaped through sustained partnership, community governance and clear agreements around data use, authorship and consent".
"Rather than treating engagement as a compliance exercise, these projects embed Indigenous authority into how co-designed research questions are framed and how results are communicated," Professor Bradshaw said.
Other examples include partnerships with Banbai Rangers in New South Wales to co-design cultural burning calendars that reduce bushfire risk, and collaborations with Bardi Jawi Rangers in northern Western Australia to monitor coral reefs and fish populations within Indigenous Protected Areas. In each case, Indigenous Knowledges are not supplementary, but "foundational to the research outcomes", the study authors noted.
Professor Bradshaw said a major finding of the study is that trust cannot be retrofitted at the publication stage.
"Meaningful engagement takes time, resources, and institutional support, and we should not assume communities want their Knowledges cited or published," he said.
"The right to say no — including the right to withdraw consent — is described as central to genuine Indigenous data sovereignty, even though this challenges conventional academic expectations of permanence and open access."
Co-author Uncle Bob Muir, a Woppaburra Elder and Indigenous Partnerships Co-ordinator at AIMS, said improving how Indigenous Knowledges are cited is not about adding another layer of bureaucracy, but about recognising First Nations Peoples as authorities whose rights continue beyond the fieldwork stage.
"Finally, we are excited to see the amplification of Indigenous Knowledge systems, after all, who wouldn't want to learn alongside cultures that mastered the aerodynamics of a boomerang, long before the scientific field of aerodynamics was even established," Uncle Bob said.
The paper, 'Crediting and citing Indigenous Knowledges within research', by C Barry, B Muir, V Backhaus, C Coyne, E Donnelly, E Evans-Illidge, LC Ferreira, D Flagg, M-S Fletcher, AC Gleiss, M Harris, JL Hounslow, D Kampers, L Keevers-Lock, C Koroi, J Mamtora, M Marshall, MG Meekan, A Poelina, Y Ropeyarn , L Russell, M Thums, R Tobler, S Ulm, CJA Bradshaw was published in BioScience.
