Trust in Research and Publication

Trust in Research and Publication

By Janpha Thadphoothon

In this blog post, I would like to delve into the business of research and the act of publishing research or academic matters. As an academic myself, I have been witnessing doubts and uncertainties surrounding research and the publicity of academic findings. It is well known that academia, like any other domain, is not free from skepticism and scrutiny.

My understanding is that there are broadly two types of sciences — natural investigations and cultural investigations, the latter being the social sciences like politics, education, and economics. What we all know and agree upon is that what is more scientific is often believed to be predictable and reliable, offering consistencies in results. Some argue for the supremacy of the natural sciences, while some argue against this notion, proposing that the social sciences hold equal importance in understanding human societies.

I must admit that I once attended a conference in Tokyo, Japan, and there were sharp, pointed questions targeting a presenter from another part of Asia. I was there, observing the exchange. Later, I recounted the incident to a respected professor of education. He remarked to me, "This probably shows that they don’t believe you. They don't trust the validity and reliability of the research." I somehow think it is a reflection of how academic work is judged — not just by the merit of the work but also by the perceived credibility of its source.

Another issue occurred recently. I was asked by a fellow researcher to help check the trustworthiness of a submitted paper. This too underscores the fact that when scholars submit papers or articles, they are not only sharing ideas but also presenting evidence to win the trust of reviewers, committees, or editors. Make no mistake, in scholarly communities, trust is a currency.

In the age of AI, texts are easily produced, data manipulated, and research findings fabricated. The news has it that AI-generated papers have made their way into academic journals without thorough verification. Truth and honesty have become rare commodities. I guess it is this new reality that pushes us to question the very foundation upon which we build knowledge.

Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that concerns about 'trust' in research and the credibility of scholarly work have long existed, well before the advent and widespread adoption of AI tools. The issue of integrity in academic inquiry — from data manipulation to biased reporting and questionable authorship — has been an enduring challenge throughout the history of scholarly publishing. What AI has done is amplify these existing anxieties, adding new layers of complexity to an already delicate matter.

I am sure you would agree with me that we must strive to ensure the integrity of research and scientific investigation. People say that academia has its share of bad players — those who cut corners, fabricate data, or plagiarize. Nevertheless, it is my belief that the majority of scholars remain committed to the pursuit of truth. However challenging, I determine to make it clear that the responsibility to maintain trustworthiness in research does not lie solely with the individual researcher, but with the academic community at large.

Let me introduce you to the notion of 'epistemic trust.' It refers to the confidence in the processes and systems of knowledge production. Experts say that epistemic trust is essential for the smooth functioning of academia and, by extension, society. Without it, skepticism would consume all scholarly pursuits.

I like the idea of academic humility. No one knows everything, but I would like to believe that by acknowledging our limitations, we can build a stronger, more honest academic culture. It is my personal belief that when scholars admit what they do not know, or the limitations of their findings, they enhance their credibility rather than diminish it.

Somehow I think it is also about cultural expectations. Some academic communities are known to be more confrontational, while others are more deferential. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that academic trust operates differently across regions and disciplines.

Fundamentally, I would argue that the trustworthiness of research stems from rigorous methodology, transparency, and replicability. Nevertheless, it is my long-held belief that (though I could be wrong) personal integrity remains the most crucial element.

Having said that, I realize how difficult it is to police integrity. People say that rules and guidelines are only as good as the people who follow them. Some argue for stricter regulations, while others warn against overregulation that stifles creativity.

I think this is where academic mentorship comes in. The transfer of not just knowledge but values from senior scholars to young researchers plays a vital role. Those were the days when everything was simple, but now the sheer volume of research, much of it driven by performance metrics and rankings, has complicated things.

I'd like to entertain you with the idea that perhaps we need a renaissance of academic virtue — an emphasis on honesty, humility, and respect for the pursuit of knowledge. It is well known that historically, great thinkers were not motivated by publication counts or citation indices but by curiosity and the desire to improve the human condition.

The modern university, however, operates differently. The pressure to publish, secure funding, and achieve high rankings has led to what some call 'academic capitalism.' I am not an expert, but I have read somewhere that this commercialization of academia affects not only the quality of research but also its trustworthiness.

My gut tells me that AI will complicate matters further. As we know, AI can generate texts, simulate data, and even fabricate results convincingly. The challenge is not AI itself but how we choose to use it. Some argue against AI's involvement in academic writing, citing concerns over originality and authorship. Others, however, see AI as a tool to assist rather than replace human intellect.

Nevertheless, it is my belief that AI should be used ethically, with clear disclosure when involved in research processes. Transparency, once again, is key. I am sure you would agree with me that hiding the use of AI undermines trust.

What we all know and agree upon is that academia's ultimate aim is to serve society through knowledge creation and dissemination. Trust is non-negotiable in this mission. My conviction is that only through collective effort — by researchers, editors, institutions, and policymakers — can we safeguard the integrity of academic work.

I must admit that there were times when I questioned the purpose of publishing for the sake of it. The proliferation of predatory journals and questionable conferences further complicates the landscape. People say that the rise of such outlets reflects both the demand for quick publications and the failure of mainstream academia to accommodate diverse voices.

Nevertheless, it is my long-held belief that true scholars will persevere. I like the idea of open-access platforms that democratize knowledge while maintaining strict peer-review standards. Some argue for complete openness in academia, while others warn of the dangers of misinformation.

In my opinion, balance is crucial. Too much openness without quality control can flood the academic space with unreliable information. Too much gatekeeping, however, can stifle innovation.

Let me conclude by emphasizing that the business of research and academic publishing is, and has always been, grounded in trust. The advent of AI and the changing dynamics of academia make it more imperative than ever to reaffirm our commitment to integrity. I am not sure but perhaps the future of research will depend less on where a paper is published and more on how it was conducted and whether its findings can be trusted.

No one knows everything, but I would like to believe that as long as there are scholars who value honesty and rigor, academia will endure. My conviction is that trust can be rebuilt and sustained if we remain vigilant, transparent, and humble.

I somehow think that is the essence of being a scholar.

About Janpha Thadphoothon
Janpha Thadphoothon is an assistant professor of ELT at the International College, Dhurakij Pundit University in Bangkok, Thailand. Janpha Thadphoothon also holds a certificate of Generative AI with Large Language Models issued by DeepLearning.AI.