Announcements

The following is an interview with Dr. Alexandre López-Borrull:

1. Could you give a brief introduction of yourself to the readers? Could you introduce your current research direction and provide an update on your progress?
Hello, I am currently a professor of information and communication at the Open University of Catalonia in Barcelona. My research has evolved alongside the discipline itself and is now focused on two main areas, open science and academic publishing and disinformation.
Regarding open science, we have been studying it both as a movement and as a driver of public policy change aimed at disseminating scientific knowledge to society and reforming research evaluation systems. Increasingly, there is a push for higher quality research that addresses core issues in science, such as reproducibility and the “publish or perish” culture.
As for disinformation—both political and scientific—it has become a growing problem. This was evident in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. elections, where fake news played a significant role in shaping public opinion, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic’s accompanying infodemic.
In this broader context, it is also essential to reflect on the implications and reach of generative AI tools. These technologies impact how information is produced and disseminated and can serve as both sources of knowledge and vectors of disinformation. Therefore, it is a timely moment to assess how generative AI might transform scientific knowledge dissemination not only in terms of quality but also quantity, and whether it can help advance the values and principles of open science.

2. Based on your experience, which research topics do you think will be of particular interest to the research community in the coming years?
Undoubtedly, the value we assign to scientific knowledge and truth—both socially and academically—will remain highly relevant. This value underpins the societal consensus necessary for functioning democracies, enabling us to distinguish fact from opinion beyond emotional, fearful, or biased responses. In such complex geopolitical times, quality information and knowledge are vital tools against polarization and hate speech.
Just as society's initial enthusiasm for social networks has given way to a more skeptical perspective, we now need to find a conscious and informed balance in using these platforms. Research into how generative AI enhances or undermines information quality will be critical in this scenario.
Equally important will be strategies in media literacy, which must be supported by research to enhance their effectiveness and impact evaluation. Within this realm of information and knowledge, I believe academia should continue fostering critical thinking supported by scientific evidence and proposals for social improvement.
Finally, the social and political use of social media demands new research approaches that can effectively improve the quality of information shared on these platforms, including algorithmic models that support more pluralistic digital content consumption.

3. What qualities do you think an Editorial Board Member needs?
I believe an Editorial Board Member must be committed to quality and be empathetic toward the community of authors that constitute the publication’s academic field. They must be responsive with deadlines—fast enough to facilitate author progress but slow enough to ensure the quality of the work being published. Diligence in decision-making is key.
The voluntary nature of academic editorial and peer-review work must be realistically integrated into the demanding schedules of scholars, who are increasingly burdened with bureaucracy and quality controls. Therefore, editors must reserve time for this important responsibility.
We often see academic publishing as a system of altruistic time exchanges—authors, editors, reviewers—and balance is essential. Being a reviewer, for instance, makes one a better author.
Lastly, an editor should possess the sensitivity and insight to uncover the underlying value of a manuscript—value that authors may not yet have fully articulated. Through constructive dialog with authors, editors can help substantially improve the final article.

4. Could you please share with us your experience as an Editorial Board Member for Publications?
From the very beginning, the process was smooth thanks to the support of the technical team, who handle the editorial workflow so efficiently that Editorial Board Members can focus solely on reading, reviewing, and validating manuscripts.
The clear ethical guidelines and protocols have been particularly reassuring. They define each step in the editorial chain, delineating boundaries to prevent conflicts of interest or inappropriate pressure from any party involved.
Ultimately, success lies in balancing speed with quality. Achieving this requires dedication and the ability to carve out quality time within our already overloaded academic agendas.

5. As the winner of this award, is there something you want to express or someone you wish to thank most?
I would simply like to thank the entire technical team for their work and my colleagues on the Editorial Board for their collaboration. The trust in your team allows you to focus on your own contributions with peace of mind. We are not isolated individuals—we are part of a team.