6.1 Innovating Scientific Publishing of Design Research: Promoting Plurality and Equity

Corresponding Chairs

Eleonora Lupo, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

Lorela Mehmeti, Alma Mater Studiorum- Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Co-Chairs

Renato Bernasconi, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

Philip Ely, Manchester School of Art, Manchester Metropolitan University

Elena Maria Formia, Alma Mater Studiorum- Università di Bologna

Peter Lloyd, Technical University of Delft

Massimo Menichinelli, Elisava, Barcelona School of Design and Engineering UVic-UCC)

Lasse Scherffig, Köln International School of Design

Fernando Secomandi, Technical University of Delft

Louise Valentine, Heriot-Watt University's Dubai campus

Frederick M.C. van Amstel, UTFPR, Curitiba ,PR, Brazil

Abstract

This track aims to investigate the epistemological and ethical framework of scientific publishing in design research, from a pluriversal perspective, that challenges dominant and Western models of knowledge production and dissemination. The track aims to approach some of the current tensions in the design publishing landscape as starting conditions for the discussion. We observe that technoscientific advancements (digital infrastructures, open access platforms, business models) are transforming academic publishing by enabling more transparent, collaborative and accessible models of dissemination. At the same time, the design research community continues to rely mainly on traditional publishing models that are shaped by ethnocentric editorial norms and centralized knowledge structures. These models, while ensuring quality by consistent processes, have led to a standardization of publication formats and standardized evaluation practices. Consequently, the concept of pluralism, intrinsic in design practice, is marginalized in the current publishing ecosystem. These tensions become visible in the evaluation phase, known as peer review, which impacts on what is considered valuable in design research.

Finally, the surge of generative AI raises critical questions around authorship and accountability, posing the challenge of how to disrupt the existing power imbalances in the publishing ecosystem that impact on the levels of inclusion and transparency of knowledge dissemination practices.

The Track welcomes contributions from diverse disciplinary perspectives, aimed at discussing ‘publishing otherwise’, addressing the following issue:

• Standardization in design publishing and evaluation practices 

• Innovative formats in design publishing

• Pluriversality in design dissemination

• Open access and equity: technological and economical gaps in research accessibility

• Plurality in evaluation practices 

• Critical perspective on AI for scientific publishing

Keywords

Knowledge ecosystem; Research Equity; Decentering/decolonising design; Design publishing; Pluriverse evaluation

References

Formia, E. M., Lupo, E., & Mehmeti, L. (2024). A situated analysis of research publication evaluation in Latin countries based on a pluriversal approach. The Design Journal, 1–20. 

Lupo, E. (2022). Changing Scientific Production in Design. Diid, (78), 10-23. https://doi.org/10.30682/diid7822a

Lupo, E. (2023). Innovating the scenario of scientific publishing in design: designing “living publications”. Strategic Design Research Journal. Volume 15, number 02, April–June 2022. 198-217.

Mehmeti, L. (2025). Towards an Inclusive and Distributed Ecosystem of Design Scientific Publishing. Advancing Assessment Models for Design Journals. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15290651

Trindade Perry G., Leônidas Soares Pereira, L., (2023). Global diversity in design research: A bibliometric investigation of design journals, Design Studies, Volume 88, Sept. 2023, 101217,