(PDF) Digital Scholarly Infrastructure and Freedom of Expression: Why Dominant Repositories Should Be Bound by ECHR Article 10

Abstract:  Abstract: This paper examines the growing tension between private digital repository governance and principles of freedom of expression, intellectual continuity, and academic preservation within contemporary online scholarly ecosystems. As academic communication becomes increasingly dependent upon privately administered repositories, DOI infrastructures, indexing systems, and algorithmically mediated visibility, significant questions emerge concerning the procedural safeguards surrounding intellectual preservation and the governance of lawful but unconventional academic contribution. The paper argues that dominant scholarly repositories may increasingly function as quasi-public intellectual infrastructures rather than ordinary private platforms, particularly where they exercise substantial influence over discoverability, citation continuity, metadata preservation, and long-term scholarly visibility. Building upon Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the paper proposes a conceptual "threshold model" under which repositories crossing certain levels of systemic scale, public reliance, and capacity for irreversible intellectual harm may require stronger transparency and due-process obligations. The discussion further examines the distinction between ordinary file moderation and the obscuration or disappearance of DOI-linked scholarly continuity. Particular attention is given to the role of metadata preservation, tombstone records, appeal pathways, and procedural transparency within infrastructures publicly associated with Open Science and long-term preservation commitments. A reflective interdisciplinary case discussion is included to illustrate the vulnerabilities faced by independent and boundary-crossing researchers operating within increasingly centralised digital knowledge systems. The case involves the unexpected removal or disabling of a large DOI-linked repository archive spanning themes including biomedical review and speculation, empathy and neuroethical research, sustainability systems, environmental resilience, governance theory, literary philosophy, cosmopoetics, psychology, symbolic cosmology, and interdisciplinary scientific-humanistic inquiry. Particular attention is given to the implications of opaque moderation processes, metadata discontinuity, and the disappearance or obscuration of DOI-associated scholarly records within infrastructures publicly associated with Open Science and long-term preservation commitments. The paper ultimately argues that the governance of digital scholarly preservation may become one of the defining academic-freedom, procedural-transparency, and knowledge-governance questions of the twenty-first century. Author's Note: The present paper does not claim that repositories are legally obligated under existing jurisprudence to treat all moderation actions as Article 10 matters. Rather, it proposes a normative and conceptual framework for future debate concerning whether dominant digital scholarly infrastructures may increasingly require quasi-public procedural obligations as their societal role expands.