Publication ethics: stressing the positive

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2015-0037
Published date14 March 2016
Pages20-23
Date14 March 2016
AuthorRichard Keeble
Subject MatterInformation & knowledge management,Information management & governance
Publication ethics: stressing
the positive
Richard Keeble
School of English and Journalism, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper discusses the publication “Challenges to ethical publishing in the digital era”.
Design/methodology/approach It is a critical analysis of the paper built around two main
arguments: the need to stress the positive in ethical debates; the critique of apolitical professionalism;
the crucial need to stress the ties between politics and ethics.
Findings – No nding — it was simply argument.
Research limitations/implications – Provocative challenge to dominant ethical debates.
Practical implications – The need to challenge the myths of professionalism.
Originality/value – The need for the academe to embrace more the work coming out of the alternative
public sphere.
Keywords Ethics, Politics, Electronic publishing, Journalism ethics
Paper type Viewpoint
When I was rst contacted by Professor Simon Rogerson over responding to a paper
exploring publication ethics in the Internet era, I immediately thought of the wonderful
possibilities which have been opened up for improving and expanding the academe.
The journal which I have co-edited since it was launched in 2003, Ethical Space: The
International Journal of Communication Ethics[1], is itself a child of the Internet. Our
editorial group members, for instance, come from a wide range of countries, including
Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Holland, Hungary, Malta, New Zealand, Spain
and the USA, and papers have appeared from colleagues all over the globe. How
amazing! The opportunities for worldwide collaborations now are enormous. One of our
recent editions was an Australian “special” drawing on contributions by ve leading
researchers from Down Under.
My instinctive reaction, then, when thinking of ethics is to focus on the “good”. I am
concerned to explore examples of “good” journalism and to present them to my students
as models. It is true that I often have to move beyond the mainstream to “alternative”
publications. And given the overall bias in higher education journalism teaching
towards corporate, mainstream media this focus on alternative, radical, progressive,
activist media, in effect, amounts to a political decision. This stress on the ties between
ethics and politics (so often ignored) is to be the main theme of this paper.
Professionalism as an ideology serves essentially to de-politicise workplace issues: One
of the main roles of ethicists is to restore the politics to the debate!
Given my instinctive celebration of the “good”, I was surprised, then, when I saw the
paper on publication ethics concentrated largely on misconduct issues, such as
plagiarism and conicts of interest. In many respects, the paper is following the
conventional bias of ethical inquiry which tends to focus on the negative; in my eld of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
JICES
14,1
20
Received 26 October 2015
Revised 26 October 2015
Accepted 5 November 2015
Journalof Information,
Communicationand Ethics in
Society
Vol.14 No. 1, 2016
pp.20-23
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/JICES-10-2015-0037

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT