Abstract
This paper presents Bembo Officina Editoriale (BOE) as a design-research experiment addressing the epistemological, ethical, and technical tensions in contemporary scientific publishing. BOE develops an open-source, automated editorial workflow—based on Markdown–Python pipelines—to generate fully editable InDesign outputs, reducing production costs and enabling accessibility without compromising design quality. Rooted in a non-profit academic framework, the model reclaims editorial autonomy while resisting the inequities of commercial open-access models based on Article Processing Charges. BOE thus proposes an alternative publishing infrastructure where automation sustains pluralism and transparency. The contribution situates this approach within a critical reflection on the historical continuity between typographic rationalization and algorithmic systems, suggesting that both shape epistemic authority in design research. BOE outlines the potential of collaborative peer review, integrating double-blind review through a public, community-based evaluation that involves reviewers, editors, and authors in an open dialogue, and promotes inclusivity, accountability, and equity in the dissemination of design knowledge.
Keywords
open access; collaborative peer review; editorial automation; epistemic pluralism; academic equity; non-profit publishing
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.2313
Citation
Riccini, R., Spagnol, S., Dalai, G., D'Eri, S., Zanettin, M., Borga, G., and Perondi, L. (2026) Designing Knowledge Otherwise: The Bembo Officina Editoriale as a Case for Alternative Academic Publishing, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.2313
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Designing Knowledge Otherwise: The Bembo Officina Editoriale as a Case for Alternative Academic Publishing
This paper presents Bembo Officina Editoriale (BOE) as a design-research experiment addressing the epistemological, ethical, and technical tensions in contemporary scientific publishing. BOE develops an open-source, automated editorial workflow—based on Markdown–Python pipelines—to generate fully editable InDesign outputs, reducing production costs and enabling accessibility without compromising design quality. Rooted in a non-profit academic framework, the model reclaims editorial autonomy while resisting the inequities of commercial open-access models based on Article Processing Charges. BOE thus proposes an alternative publishing infrastructure where automation sustains pluralism and transparency. The contribution situates this approach within a critical reflection on the historical continuity between typographic rationalization and algorithmic systems, suggesting that both shape epistemic authority in design research. BOE outlines the potential of collaborative peer review, integrating double-blind review through a public, community-based evaluation that involves reviewers, editors, and authors in an open dialogue, and promotes inclusivity, accountability, and equity in the dissemination of design knowledge.