Want to champion a healthier information ecosystem? Let's go to work 🤜⚡️🤛 Contact: stopmalpublishing@gmail.com
| To publish in a manner that constitutes malpractice.
Although malpublish is a newly coined term and not yet widely recognized by mainstream dictionaries, this website is dedicated to defining, clarifying, and protecting its meaning. Our goal is to serve as the authoritative source on the definition of malpublish, ensuring it’s used accurately and responsibly across diverse platforms and media. By promoting a clear standard for the term, we empower the public to spot publishing malpractice and contribute to a healthier information ecosystem.
Malpublish encompasses a wide range of publishing failings, from negligence to deliberate ethical violations. The term serves as an umbrella for any breach of a publisher’s duty of care, providing communities with the language needed to discuss and determine its publishing standards, the severity of 'deliberate malpublishing,' and the appropriate actions to take in response.
Noteworthy:
Malpublishing is the cause of misinformation.
There would be no misinformation without publishing malpractice. By naming and defining this term, we highlight its central role in eroding public trust, spreading falsehoods, and undermining informed decision-making.
Ultimately, malpublish empowers individuals and organizations to identify and address unethical practices, fostering a healthier, more trustworthy information ecosystem.
A compound of the prefix “mal-” (meaning bad or wrongful) + “publish.”
Similar to “malpractice” or “malfunction,” the “mal-” prefix denotes an incorrect or harmful action.
Malpublish fills a linguistic gap by naming behavior that leads to misinformation existing —that was previously hard to capture in a single term.
No synonyms exist that capture the precise meaning of malpublish—a deliberate act of committing publishing malpractice. Terms like “misinform,” “deceive,” or “mislead” describe acts and outcomes but lack the publishing-specific focus of making content (a narrative) generally available to the public.Â
No antonyms exist that capture the precise opposite meaning of malpublish—The act of conducting correct publishing practices. Words like “inform,” “verify,” or “fact-check” are related to ethical publishing but lack the publishing-specific focus of making content (a narrative) generally available to the public.Â
The absence of precise synonyms or antonyms underscores the necessity of malpublish: it fills a critical gap in discussing how misinformation takes root through unethical publishing.Â
These standard forms show how “malpublish” functions as a verb.
Verb: malpublish
Example: “They malpublish reports that lack proper citations.”
3rd Person Present: malpublishes
Example: “She malpublishes sensational headlines without verifying sources.”
Past Tense: malpublished
Example: “He malpublished several articles containing false data.”
Past Participle: malpublished
Example: “These stories remain uncorrected online, so they have been malpublished.”
Gerund/Present Participle: malpublishing
Example: “By malpublishing harmful propaganda, they undermine public trust.”
These emerging words expand on the concept of malpublish, moving beyond its core verb form:
Malpublisher (n.)
An entity or individual who engages in publishing malpractice.
Example: “The news site became a notorious malpublisher after repeatedly sharing unverified claims.”
Malpublishes (v.)
Indicating an ongoing publishing malpractice in the present tense.
Example: “He malpublishes clickbait content daily.”
Malpublished (v. & adj.)
Used to indicate that content exists because of publishing malpractice or to describe such content.
Example (v.): “They malpublished the report before verifying any sources.”
Example (adj.): “That malpublished article caused widespread confusion.”
Malpublishing (v. & n.)
The act or practice of publishing malpractice; also used to describe the broader phenomenon.
Example (v.): “They are malpublishing these stories without fact-checking.”
Example (n.): “Malpublishing thrives where accountability is lacking.”
Malpublication (n.)
A specific instance or piece of content existing because of publishing malpractice.
Example: “This research paper is a clear malpublication, as the data was fabricated.”
Malpublishment (n.)
An instance, act, or result of publishing malpractice—often highlighting the breach and violation of ethical standards.
Example: “Each malpublishment erodes trust in the publication’s integrity.”
Malpublicity (n.)
The condition or quality of being widely known (or gaining exposure) as a result of publishing malpractice; or the dissemination of content originating from publishing malpractice.
Example: “The tabloid’s malpublicity has skyrocketed after releasing doctored celebrity photos.”
To capture the multifaceted nature of malpublish (publishing malpractice), consider these overlapping but distinct categories. Each facet underscores a different way publishers can fail in their duty of care:
Content Violations
Violating Standards of Truth and Accuracy
Publishing or distributing content while knowingly disregarding recognized ethical benchmarks, such as fact-checking, source verification, or transparency.
Spreading Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation, or Fake News
Intentionally causing false, deceptive, or misleading claims to circulate publicly.
Presenting Unsubstantiated Claims as Facts
Passing off opinions or unverified statements as factual reporting.
Failing to Promptly Correct or Retract Errors
Neglecting to fix inaccuracies immediately.Â
Misattribution or Unauthorized Use
Plagiarizing, omitting source credit, or distributing content without proper rights or consent.
Prioritizing Sensationalism Over Truth
Skewing data or context (e.g., using manipulated soundbites or headlines) for shock value.
AI-Generated Content Without Disclosure
Releasing deepfakes or other artificial material without openly stating its true nature.
Production Failures
Negligent Quality Control
Failing to ensure the integrity of published material, whether in print or digital form. This includes errors like smudged pages or missing content in physical copies, as well as broken links, corrupted files, or incorrect metadata on digital platforms. By neglecting essential quality checks, publishers and platforms compromise users’ ability to access accurate or complete information.
Contractual Obligations
Breach of Agreement
Failing to pay royalties or honor contractual obligations, thereby mistreating writers or contributors.
Intent and Negligence
Deliberate vs. Accidental
Includes both purposeful wrongdoing (e.g., willfully spreading falsehoods) and negligent acts (e.g., ignoring basic editorial or legal due diligence).Â
Malpublishing is marked by deliberate violations of responsible publishing principles:
Knowingly presenting false or unverifiable claims as factual.
Distorting or misrepresenting information to mislead audiences.
Failing to properly attribute sources or engaging in plagiarism.
Using sensationalist headlines, images, or soundbites to manipulate audience perception.
Omitting conflicts of interest or biases that may influence content.
Blurring the lines between news, opinion, advertising, and propaganda.
Refusing to correct or retract content immediately once errors are identified.
Perpetuating harmful stereotypes, spreading hateful or discriminatory messages, or invading individuals' privacy.
Twisting another's message by taking it out of context.
Contributing to the spread of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news across any platform or publication.
Undermining the integrity of accessible information.
These examples illustrate various ways malpublish manifests:
“The news outlet was accused of malpublishing when it knowingly ran a story rife with factual errors, deceiving its audience.”
“Critics blamed the social media platform for malpublishing by failing to remove misleading posts promoting dubious health products.”
“The research journal malpublished by not retracting a study based on falsified data, letting flawed findings continue shaping public opinion.”
“The political campaign was guilty of malpublishing when it used soundbites taken out of context of its apponent in an advertisement to manipulate voter perception.”
Malpublish is a term coined in March 2023, spotlighting publishing malpractices at the heart of misinformation. By naming the actions and behaviors that erode public trust—spreading falsehoods, failing to retract errors, and prioritizing sensationalism over truth—malpublish provides a clear framework for identifying and discussing these harmful practices.
Together, these elements highlight the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in every channel of communication, from academic journals to social media platforms. When content is responsibly published, a healthy information ecosystem flourishes. When it is malpublished, misinformation thrives, and the health of our information ecosystem erodes.
We've all felt the frustration of encountering misleading or blatantly false information online, in the news, or from other sources. Misinformation is a pervasive issue that can erode public trust, hinder informed decision-making, and even put people's well-being at risk. While fact-checking initiatives and media literacy efforts are valuable, they often treat the symptoms rather than the root cause.
That's where the concept of "malpublish" comes in - a new term that gets to the heart of the misinformation problem by calling out unethical publishing practices. By naming and clearly defining this phenomenon, we gain a powerful tool to drive positive change.
Simply put, to "malpublish" means to cause misinformation. It's knowingly making false, misleading, or improperly attributed content available to the public through any media channel or platform. It's violating widely accepted ethical publishing standards for truth, transparency, and accountability. Examples of malpublished content might include a news article that presents unverified claims as facts, a social media post that misrepresents data to support a biased narrative, or an advertisement that uses doctored images to mislead consumers.
Some may argue that the term "malpublish" oversimplifies the complex issues surrounding misinformation or that it could be misused to undermine legitimate journalism. However, the beauty of "malpublish" lies in its ability to provide clear, concise language for identifying and discussing the root cause of misinformation. Like how "plagiarism" redefined intellectual property norms, this new term could transform how we view and address unethical publishing practices.
For media professionals, it serves as a powerful reminder of journalism's sacred role in creating public trust. By actively rejecting and calling out malpublished content, ethical journalists and publishers can differentiate themselves in an increasingly crowded and noisy media landscape.
But the impact of "malpublish" extends far beyond newsrooms. Every social media user, every reader of online content, can become an active guardian against misinformation by learning to identify malpublished material. It democratizes the fight for truth, empowering individuals to hold publishers accountable and demand higher standards.
Widespread adoption of "malpublish" has the potential to revolutionize how society approaches the misinformation crisis. By pinpointing the root cause - the violation of ethical publishing norms - we can create a future where accuracy and accountability are the default, not the exception.
Of course, this evolution won't happen overnight. It will require ongoing public discourse to refine and promote the concept, sustained pressure on bad actors to change their practices, and likely new policies or regulations inspired by the "malpublish" framework. Collaborative efforts between media professionals, policymakers, educators, and the general public will be essential to fully realize the potential of this term.
But one thing is clear: giving this insidious practice a name and a clear definition is an essential first step. "Malpublish" equips us with a powerful tool to identify and combat misinformation at its source. It's a rallying cry for a new era of ethical publishing - one that we cannot afford to ignore.
Understanding the scope of what constitutes "malpublish" is crucial for both content creators and consumers. It's important to note that "malpublish" specifically refers to the dissemination of information that fails to meet ethical publishing standards—this can include spreading misinformation, not verifying facts, or not clearly distinguishing between opinion and fact.
However, writing opinion pieces, theories, or fiction does not automatically fall into "malpublishing" as long as these forms adhere to ethical practices. For example, an opinion piece is perfectly valid under ethical publishing standards provided it is clearly labeled as opinion and not misleadingly presented as fact. Similarly, fictional works or theoretical explorations must be upfront about their nature. The audience should never be deceived about the content's intent or factual accuracy.
In essence, "malpublish" isn't just about what you publish, but how you handle the responsibility that comes with publishing. It's a commitment to truth, accuracy, and clarity, ensuring the audience receives content they can trust and rely on.
The term "malpublish" has a wide range of practical applications across various fields, as outlined in the comprehensive white paper on "malpublishing."
For journalists and reporters, "malpublish" serves as a crucial reminder to verify sources, fact-check information, and ensure the accuracy of their reporting (Society of Professional Journalists, 2021).
In the realm of social media, platforms can use "malpublish" as a guideline to develop algorithms that flag and remove content that violates standards of responsible publishing (MIT Sloan, 2021)(Brookings).Â
In academia, educators can use "malpublish" to teach students about the importance of proper attribution, the dangers of plagiarism, and the need to critically evaluate the sources they use in their research (University of Oxford)(Antioch University).Â
In the legal field, "malpublish" can provide a framework for developing policies and regulations that hold publishers and platforms accountable for the spread of misinformation (ACS Law on Section 230 and misinformation)(Harvard Gazette on regulating tech firms)(Queen Mary University of London on social media and the law)
To help content creators, publishers, platforms, and everyday users avoid "malpublishing," here are some instructions grounded in guidelines from reputable publishing standards and media ethics boards:
Fact-Check Your Information
Always verify the accuracy and authenticity of information before publishing. Make use of credible sources and cross-reference facts where possible. The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter offers a code of principles which encourages accuracy and transparency in information dissemination.
Distinguish Between Facts and Opinions
Clearly label opinions and editorials as such, and base your factual content on verified information. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) emphasizes the need to distinguish between advocacy, commentary, and factual reporting.
Provide Proper Attribution
Properly cite sources for quotes, data, and other third-party content used in your publications. The American Psychological Association (APA) and Modern Language Association (MLA) provide detailed guidelines on how to cite sources across various formats.
Engage in Responsible Editing
Follow ethical guidelines for editing that respect the integrity of the factual content. Avoid sensationalism that distorts the truth or misleads the audience. The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook outlines principles for fair and accurate reporting.
Transparency with Corrections
Publicly correct any misinformation promptly upon discovery. Provide clear updates to articles or posts where necessary. The Retraction Watch database is an example of transparency in publishing corrections and retractions.
Respect Intellectual Property
Ensure you have the right to use the content you publish, respecting copyrights and intellectual property laws. Tools like Creative Commons can help understand what media can be freely used under what circumstances.
Use Plagiarism Detection Software
Tools like Turnitin and Grammarly can help identify unintentional plagiarism, ensuring that all content is original or properly cited.
Make Corrections Immediatly
Each piece of content must be evaluated on its own merits. If any segment of a published item is found to contravene ethical standards—perhaps by inadvertently including unverified facts or misleading information—it risks the integrity of the entire piece. In such cases, it is the duty of the publisher to promptly address the issue, either by correcting the misleading information or retracting the piece if necessary. Failure to do so can transform an oversight into a case of "malpublishment," affecting the entire work while automatically labeling then a malpublisher.Â
By following these guidelines, content creators and platforms can ensure that they are engaging in responsible publishing practices and avoiding the pitfalls of malpublishing.
While content creators, publishers, and platforms have a responsibility to avoid malpublishing, readers also play a crucial role in combating the spread of misinformation. As consumers of information, it's essential that we approach content with a critical eye, questioning the sources and accuracy of the information we encounter.
When we come across content that appears to be malpublished, we should feel empowered to call it out and demand better from publishers and platforms. By holding them accountable and actively seeking out reliable sources of information, readers can help create a culture of responsible publishing and promote the spread of accurate, trustworthy information.
As the concept of "malpublish" gains traction, it has the potential to revolutionize the way we approach publishing in the digital age. By establishing clear standards for responsible publishing and holding publishers and platforms accountable for the content they produce and disseminate, we can create a more trustworthy and reliable information ecosystem.
In the future, we may see the development of new technologies and processes designed to identify and prevent malpublishing, such as open-source certification systems that prove ethical publishing practices have been adhered to. Publishers and platforms may also adopt more rigorous editorial processes and training programs to ensure that their content meets the highest standards of accuracy and integrity.
Ultimately, the widespread adoption of "malpublish" has the power to restore trust in the publishing industry and promote a more informed, more discerning society. By working together to combat malpublishing and promote responsible publishing practices, we can create a future where accurate, reliable information is the norm, not the exception.
As the neologist and publisher of the term "malpublish," I want to emphasize the factual nature of this newly coined word. While "malpublish" may not yet have achieved widespread use, its accuracy in describing a real and observable phenomenon is inherent in its clear definition.
The practices encapsulated by "malpublish" – such as knowingly presenting false claims as factual, misrepresenting information, failing to properly attribute sources, and refusing to issue timely corrections – are demonstrably occurring in the modern publishing landscape. By identifying and naming these practices, "malpublish" provides a factual framework for discussing and addressing the issue of irresponsible publishing.
It is important to note that the factual nature of "malpublish" is independent of its adoption. Just as a scientific discovery remains factual even before it is widely accepted, "malpublish" is inherently factual because it accurately describes a real problem. As more people recognize the importance of responsible publishing practices and the term gains traction, its status as a fact of language will likely become more widely acknowledged.
I coined "malpublish" in March 2023 to fill a gap in our language and to enable more precise discussions about the complex issue of misinformation in publishing. By providing a clear and specific term for these irresponsible practices, I hope to contribute to a more informed and discerning society, where accuracy, transparency, and accountability in all forms of publishing are the norm. For those interested in diving deeper into the concept of malpublishing and its implications, I will be publishing a comprehensive white paper on "malpublishing" and the book "Malpublishers" in 2024.Â
Neologist & Publisher - Roarke Clinton
Coined - March 2023
Publication Category - Linguistic Innovation; Neologism
Have a suggestion? Let's connect