An interdisciplinary analysis of substitutive visibility in academia, showing how executive-centred branding distorts epistemic credit, breaches fiduciary duties, and compounds testimonial and contributory injustice, with reforms for fiduciary openness and representational equity.

Open letter to David Chalmers and David Bourget addresses serious fiduciary governance failures, conflicts of interest, and lack of transparency at PhilPapers, calling urgently for accountability and reform to protect epistemic justice in academia.

Peter Kahl argues that epistemic violence in universities, journals, and academic platforms constitutes fiduciary breaches harming democratic discourse. He proposes radical fiduciary reforms for inclusive, pluralistic scholarship.

This essay critiques how university marketing, rankings, and promotional narratives may perpetuate epistemic violence by silencing plural knowledges, urging institutions to recognise their fiduciary epistemic duties and adopt inclusive practices.

A multimodal poetic thesis explicitly critiquing academic gatekeeping and epistemic domestication. Through poetry, multilingualism, and visual epistemology, it illustrates how traditional academic structures actively constrain knowledge into sanctioned forms.

In this paper, I critically examine institutional epistemic gatekeepers—including academic platforms such as PhilPapers, JSTOR, major publishers, and academic repositories—as fiduciaries entrusted with safeguarding epistemic diversity, justice, and integrity.