The violence against research and scholarly communication in the United States perpetrated with a stunning mixture of ignorance and cruelty, has touched even the arcane and largely unnoticed world of library science and information (LIS) research.
A colleague (an American) and I (a Canadian) are researching the growing threat of AI censorship. Rachel Griffin describes AI censorship as a form of “automated censorship in which AI systems are used to selectively suppress or block specific types of information, content, or voices deemed undesirable to those controlling the AI.”
The paper resulting from our work examines AI censorship in the context of existing threats and library principles. It explores specific techniques and methods of AI censorship and looks to AI literacy for countermeasures.
Given the importance of anti-censorship work to librarianship, we assumed our paper would be of interest. We submitted it to a journal, published in the US, that regularly publishes papers that touch on the intersection of libraries, librarianship, and technology.
We received an automated, acknowledgement message … then silence. After emailing the editors for an update on the status of our paper, we became aware that, while not a desk reject, the paper had been discussed by the journal’s Editorial Board. It had not yet gone out for external review.
According to the editors, “the manuscript is timely and would be a valuable contribution to the literature.” However, the journal had concerns that the paper was “politically infused,” and updates were needed “clarifying potentially politically sensitive claims for readers.”
This was a bit of a surprise, especially since according to Christine Jenkins “all censorship is political.” A request for clarification went unanswered. After a further request was ignored, we decided to withdraw the paper. We have received no response to that either.
The paper has been submitted to another journal.
It is hard to know exactly why our work was treated this way. However, one cannot help but think there is a concern about government retribution. The paper does document and criticize the US government for its role in AI censorship. In a normal world, criticizing the government for egregious actions is an obligation, not a violation.
Of course, libraries and librarians are being attacked in the US. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has been shut down, various state laws prohibit ALA memberships, book bans are rampant, and librarians have been threatened with arrest.
Timothy Snyder’s “do not obey in advance” is (or should be) the rallying cry of research and scholarship. Sadly, at least in the case of this journal and their Editorial Board, this is not the case.
We didn’t get a reason; we just got silence. We assume they hoped we would just go away … and I suppose we did exactly that, relieving them of the dilemma and anxiety.
Did the journal self-censor? It appears so. Shameful.
I should note that the journal did (just today ironically) respond offering to send the paper to reviewers with slight modifications but no requirement to respond to or clarify "politically sensitive" issues. The concerns, however, still stand.