As presented in the June 2025 UKSG newsletter.

Between policy and protocol lies something deeper: the trust we place in knowledge itself — and our duty to protect it. The idea that knowledge — the pursuit of it, the production of it — should be trusted, guarded, and nurtured.

Here are some thoughts.

The Scientific Paper is Still Golden, so let us treat it as such.

The scientific paper remains our most trusted unit of knowledge — the gold standard of research communication. It’s durable, portable, and citable. It anchors careers, policies, and entire fields of inquiry.

Publishers have long been stewards of this system. Many have worked in good faith to uphold standards, adapt to digital transformation, and meet the growing demands of openness, speed, and scale. But amid these pressures, some uncomfortable truths have gone unaddressed.

The ecosystem has changed, and so have the incentives. In a world of proliferating journals, citation games, and monetized prestige, we’ve seen the rise of papers that are more glitter than gold. Impurities — once rare or subtle — are now easier to manufacture and harder to detect. Some papers are little more than a polished façade, produced and traded in a marketplace where visibility can outweigh veracity.

It’s time to refine the gold standard — not by abandoning it but by subjecting it to the same scrutiny we expect of science itself.

The Need for Better Checks

Science is not immune to bad actors or the systems that enable them. The challenges we face aren’t only about scientists behaving badly but also about the broader ecosystem surrounding them. With the rise of open science has come a rise in commercialization. Papers and citations can be purchased; we have seen examples of authorship for sale as well as citations for sale. Knowledge has become a commodity—and in some cases, a product to be packaged, marketed, and sold.

But not all knowledge is created equal. When everything looks like science, it becomes harder to tell what science is. That’s why we need checks — not to gatekeep progress, but to protect the integrity of the pursuit itself.

Protecting knowledge: Provenance is Key

If papers and their authors are still key, how do we trust what and who we read? Let’s look at parallels with art.

Authentication of a Painting

Provenance, properties, then context. This is the natural order of progression for authenticating a painting. We need to understand who owned the painting, what its properties are, and then put the story into context.

1. Provenance – The ownership history: Who created it? Who owned it? Is the documentation reliable?

2. Properties — The physical attributes: Are the paint, canvas, and frame consistent with the claimed time period?

3. Context — Experts assess whether the piece is real if its provenance and properties raise doubts. Is the story of acquisition and ownership believable?

If a fake painting is sold, a crime has been committed. Forgeries, stolen works, and even the strategic use of art as collateral in underground deals create legal repercussions.

In science, the stakes are different if they exist at all.

Authentication of Research

It is not criminal to buy a research paper. It is not criminal to buy citations for said paper. There is nothing illegal about adding authors to papers. Or to cite papers that you want in other papers, in policies, or product announcements.

Much like art, scholarly work should stand up to scrutiny, though. And we can use the same steps in authenticating scholarship:

● Provenance – Who are the authors? What are their affiliations? Are the reviewers independent? Who funded the research? Ethical considerations and transparency shape trust. Disclosures, hidden or visible, provide traces of security trust.

● Properties – Are the methods valid? Is the data honest? Has the text been manipulated? Do images and results align with established norms in the field?

● Context – When doubts persist, forensic scientometric experts are needed. Does the author match the pattern of trust for that field and in this environment?

At the heart of both processes lies a crucial distinction:

● In art, provenance, properties, and professional judgment determine a monetary value.

● In research, they determine trust.

And trust is what holds the scientific enterprise together.

Knowledge Fidelity: Libraries are Key

Libraries have always been stewards of knowledge — not merely storing it, but curating it, contextualizing it, and making it explainable and accessible. In the digital age, that role expands to include upholding the fidelity of knowledge itself: its integrity, transparency, and trustworthiness. And in a world increasingly shaped by complex technologies, everyone has the right to understand how decisions are made.

Take, for example, the rise of AI in decision-making. As Cynthia Hudson Vitale explains during a talk at the UKSG November 2023 conference: “The core right to explainable AI affirms an individual’s or user’s entitlement to a detailed explanation of how an AI system arrived at a specific conclusion — particularly when that conclusion carries financial, legal, or social implications.”

By promoting transparency in AI and advocating for the right to understandable explanations, libraries deepen their role as guardians of knowledge fidelity. They don’t just store information — they protect its meaning, its context, and its use. In doing so, they empower individuals to engage with AI and other technologies in ways that are informed, critical, and meaningful.

Which brings us back to trust.

If trust is the currency of science, then libraries are the vault. But knowledge doesn’t live in vaults — it lives through people, through practices, through protocols, and through provenance. And trust? Trust lives through the libraries.