Semantic Labour and the Politics of Metadata
Scholarly Infrastructure in the AI-Driven Academy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.330Keywords:
metadata sovereignty, semantic labour, epistemic capture, retrieval-augmented generation, knowledge infrastructures, scholarly communicationAbstract
The structured, machine-readable metadata that researchers and librarians generate to make scholarly outputs retrievable has become, in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), the decisive input shaping what knowledge can be found, ranked, and generated. This article argues that this metadata is produced through a cycle of semantic labourーthe cognitive, administrative, and technical work of encoding research outputs in structured, machine-readable formーthat is largely unremunerated by its commercial beneficiaries and that this labour is the mechanism through which a broader process of epistemic capture operates. As enriched metadata is enclosed within proprietary knowledge graphs and AI products, especially the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems now central to scholarly search, the coverage gaps, classification biases, and ranking logics embedded in those systems are operationalised at scale, transferring authority over what counts as legible knowledge from scholarly communities to commercial infrastructural providers. This article traces this dynamic through a six-stage model of the metadata production cycle, analyses the mechanisms of commercial enclosure and their epistemic consequences, and assesses the conditions under which open metadata infrastructures could constitute a genuine counterweight. The conclusion argues that metadata sovereignty, understood as the capacity of scholarly communities to maintain collective authority over the semantic conditions of their epistemic legibility, is a central challenge for scholarly communication in the AI era.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Allison-Cassin, Stacy, and Dean Seeman. 2022. “Metadata as Knowledge.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 6 (3): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.244.
Arboledas-Lérida, Luis. 2024. “A Marxist Analysis of the Metrification of Academic Labour: Research Impact Metrics and Socially Necessary Labour Time.” Science & Society 88 (4): 573–600. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2024.88.4.573.
Belantara, Amanda, and Emily Drabinski. 2022. “Working Knowledge: Cataloguers and the Stories They Tell.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 6 (3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.233.
Besançon, Lonni, Guillaume Cabanac, Cyril Labbé, and Alexander Magazinov. 2024. “Sneaked References: Fabricated Reference Metadata Distort Citation Counts.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 75 (12): 1368–1379. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24896.
Bevara, Ravi Varma Kumar, Brady D. Lund, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Sai Pranathi Karedla, Yara Mohammed, Sai Tulasi Kolapudi, and Aashrith Mannuru. 2025. “Prospects of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) for Academic Library Search and Retrieval.” Information Technology and Libraries 44 (2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v44i2.17361.
Beverungen, Armin, Steffen Böhm, and Christopher Land. 2012. “The Poverty of Journal Publishing.” Organization 19 (6): 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412448858.
Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. The MIT Press.
Catala, Amandine. 2024. “Epistemic Injustice or Epistemic Oppression?” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 7 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.294.
Céspedes, Lucía, Diego Kozlowski, Carolina Pradier, Maxime Holmberg Sainte-Marie, Natsumi Solange Shokida, Pierre Benz, Constance Poitras, Anton Boudreau Ninkov, Saeideh Ebrahimy, Philips Ayeni, Sarra Filali, Bing Li, and Vincent Larivière. 2025. “Evaluating the Linguistic Coverage of OpenAlex: An Assessment of Metadata Accuracy and Completeness.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 76 (6): 884–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24979.
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). 2026. “DOAJ’s New Premium Metadata Services.” DOAJ Blog, March 3, 2026. https://blog.doaj.org/2026/03/03/doajs-new-premium-metadata-services/.
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
Huws, Ursula. 2014. Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age. Monthly Review Press.
Ma, Lai. 2024. “Generative AI for Academic Publishing? Some Thoughts About Epistemic Diversity and the Pursuit of Truth.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 7 (1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.287.
Manghi, Paolo. 2024. “Challenges in Building Scholarly Knowledge Graphs for Research Assessment in Open Science.” Quantitative Science Studies 5 (4): 991–1021. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00322.
Mayernik, Matthew S. 2019. “Metadata Accounts: Achieving Data and Evidence in Scientific Research.” Social Studies of Science 49 (5): 732757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719863494.
Mayernik, Matthew S. 2020. “Metadata.” Knowledge Organization 47 (8): 696–713. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-8-96.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science are Considered.” Science 159 (3810): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.
Merton, Robert K. 1988. “The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property.” Isis 79 (4): 606–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848.
Montgomery, Lucy, John Hartley, Cameron Neylon, Malcolm Gillies, Eve Gray, Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang, Joan Leach, Jason Potts, Xiang Ren, Katherine Skinner, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, and Katie Wilson. 2021. Open Knowledge Institutions: Reinventing Universities. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13614.001.0001.
Parry, Kyle. 2023. “Metadata is Not Data About Data.” In Decolonizing Data: Algorithms and Society, edited by Michael Filimowicz. Routledge.
Pooley, Jefferson. 2022. “Surveillance Publishing.” The Journal of Electronic Publishing 25 (1). https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.1874.
Pooley, Jefferson. 2024. “Large Language Publishing: The Scholarly Publishing Oligopoly’s Bet on AI.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 7 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.291.
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Polity Press.
Terranova, Tiziana. 2000. “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.” Social Text 18 (2): 33–58.
Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, Jildau Bouwman, Anthony J. Brookes, Tim Clark, Mercè Crosas, Ingrid Dillo, Olivier Dumon, Scott Edmunds, Chris T. Evelo, Richard Finkers, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Alasdair J.G. Gray, Paul Groth, Carole Goble, Jeffrey S. Grethe, Jaap Heringa, Peter A.C ’t Hoen, Rob Hooft, Tobias Kuhn, Ruben Kok, Joost Kok, Scott J. Lusher, Maryann E. Martone, Albert Mons, Abel L. Packer, Bengt Persson, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Marco Roos, Rene van Schaik, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Erik Schultes, Thierry Sengstag, Ted Slater, George Strawn, Morris A. Swertz, Mark Thompson, Johan van der Lei, Erik van Mulligen, Jan Velterop, Andra Waagmeester, Peter Wittenburg, Katherine Wolstencroft, Jun Zhao, and Barend Mons. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3: 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Elena Battaner Moro

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


