A summary of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) debate session, where Haseeb Irfanullah argued in favor of a motion declaring that journal editors do not need to worry about preventing the spread of misinformation, while Are Brean argued against it.
How should we think about the problems of misinformation and disinformation in the context of scholarly publishing, research, and libraries?
How do the problems of misinformation and disinformation intersect with the concerns of scholarly communication?
In 2023 we twice assessed the social media landscape and with the explosion of Bluesky over the last weeks it seemed a good time to reassess. How do Chefs use social media differently now, and what are they seeing as platforms of choice or opportunity?
How will the American Sunlight Project make it more costly for bad actors to spread disinformation — and what does this mean for scholarly publishing?
Could the failure of a journal to visibly correct known errors in a publication, thereby propagating false information, be considered disinformation?
What if even by saying “fake science” you inadvertently participate in a scam? What if this phrase legitimizes fraud, lies, and deceit? Let’s call it what it is – dupery.
With so much broken by the Internet, we may be moving into a mode of fixing things. Are open citations part of the solution, or more of the problem?