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.

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.

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.

An interdisciplinary study of the classic ‘falling tree’ problem, exploring epistemic trust, subjugated silence, and fiduciary authority across knowledge, culture, and power.

This academic paper critically examines traditional peer-review processes in academia, exposing embedded colonial epistemic structures and proposing a transformative ‘epistemocratic’ governance model to proactively foster epistemic justice, inclusivity, cognitive diversity, and scholarly autonomy.