It sounds like a wonderful idea. I do expect that the process of defining the standard itself would be lengthy and contested — given the multiplicity of stakeholders. Yet, for precisely those reasons, worthwhile! This would not be a quick-win undertaking, and I can imagine that certain aspects that may be wishes for ‘standardization’ may prove elusive, while others may surface based on process/oversight core-wisdom from outside publishing.
The strongest advocacy may come from technical service development. The most reticence may come from areas that endure via hierarchical power/discretion and gatekeeping… A core difficulty is that THIS structure (experience =‘s expertise, power =‘s standards gatekeeping) IS the foundation of academia and peer review. It sounds bad… but is it?? Could an activity like this facilitate a worse situation?
There is a danger that this could generate administrative box-ticking, and little beyond. Education already suffers under this yoke. I confess to a belief (born of experience) that the opacity of IF decision making is a blessing in disguise. It’s impossible to fully ‘game’ metrics you don’t know, and can only guess at…
Sometimes, a separation of powers, and minimizing transparency, is the best way to keep everyone on their toes.
I suspect this would end up as an administrative box-ticking exercise, and one which could open the door to more automation of editorial decisions. I thought ISO 9001 standards are largely based on how well you follow your documented processes rather than how good those processes actually are, or how good your end product is. I think you can have a perfectly ISO 9001-compliant system that systematically produces poor editorial decisions, as long as you're doing it consistently, documenting your continual improvement, and attempting to make a few improvements.
Indeed. In the end, it’s potentially both good, and bad. If processes are wildly inconsistent and subjective, guardrails can add value — so long as that value isn’t masking weak Editors, or crippling strong Editors.
Balance is key.
It’s completely fair to be cynical about commercial interest and appetite for navigating complex space responsibly. It always has been. The ‘blah blah’ masking-potential of a box-ticking ISO exercise does fill me with agenda-dread. 😅
My favourite side-effect from the rise of AI potential is how it’s forcing us all to acknowledge that systematic process support MUST retain clear boundaries against editorial decision automation. Happily, there’s still plenty of valuable development-potential that sits on the right side of that boundary. Keeping it on-side is critical. Perhaps debating the nuances of what human-the-loop actually looks like (and doesn’t) could be worth umpiring-out a playbook, via an ISO standard..?
ISO 9001 wouldn’t be a silver bullet, and yes — compliance is about following processes, not defining excellence, which we still need to define. But introducing external, auditable structure could be a cultural shift: expose the actual work involved in making knowledge trustworthy, from something seen as abstract, gatekept, and profit-driven, toward collective responsibility, accountability, and traceable effort. It could force all stakeholders — publishers, universities, funders — to own their part in the system, move from blame to co-responsibility.
It sounds like a wonderful idea. I do expect that the process of defining the standard itself would be lengthy and contested — given the multiplicity of stakeholders. Yet, for precisely those reasons, worthwhile! This would not be a quick-win undertaking, and I can imagine that certain aspects that may be wishes for ‘standardization’ may prove elusive, while others may surface based on process/oversight core-wisdom from outside publishing.
The strongest advocacy may come from technical service development. The most reticence may come from areas that endure via hierarchical power/discretion and gatekeeping… A core difficulty is that THIS structure (experience =‘s expertise, power =‘s standards gatekeeping) IS the foundation of academia and peer review. It sounds bad… but is it?? Could an activity like this facilitate a worse situation?
There is a danger that this could generate administrative box-ticking, and little beyond. Education already suffers under this yoke. I confess to a belief (born of experience) that the opacity of IF decision making is a blessing in disguise. It’s impossible to fully ‘game’ metrics you don’t know, and can only guess at…
Sometimes, a separation of powers, and minimizing transparency, is the best way to keep everyone on their toes.
I suspect this would end up as an administrative box-ticking exercise, and one which could open the door to more automation of editorial decisions. I thought ISO 9001 standards are largely based on how well you follow your documented processes rather than how good those processes actually are, or how good your end product is. I think you can have a perfectly ISO 9001-compliant system that systematically produces poor editorial decisions, as long as you're doing it consistently, documenting your continual improvement, and attempting to make a few improvements.
Indeed. In the end, it’s potentially both good, and bad. If processes are wildly inconsistent and subjective, guardrails can add value — so long as that value isn’t masking weak Editors, or crippling strong Editors.
Balance is key.
It’s completely fair to be cynical about commercial interest and appetite for navigating complex space responsibly. It always has been. The ‘blah blah’ masking-potential of a box-ticking ISO exercise does fill me with agenda-dread. 😅
My favourite side-effect from the rise of AI potential is how it’s forcing us all to acknowledge that systematic process support MUST retain clear boundaries against editorial decision automation. Happily, there’s still plenty of valuable development-potential that sits on the right side of that boundary. Keeping it on-side is critical. Perhaps debating the nuances of what human-the-loop actually looks like (and doesn’t) could be worth umpiring-out a playbook, via an ISO standard..?
ISO 9001 wouldn’t be a silver bullet, and yes — compliance is about following processes, not defining excellence, which we still need to define. But introducing external, auditable structure could be a cultural shift: expose the actual work involved in making knowledge trustworthy, from something seen as abstract, gatekept, and profit-driven, toward collective responsibility, accountability, and traceable effort. It could force all stakeholders — publishers, universities, funders — to own their part in the system, move from blame to co-responsibility.