Logging Off and Logging On - Fall 2025
doi:10.7940/M330.1.LOGGINGON.FARIS
Michael J. Faris, Editor
Welcome to the fall 2025 issue of Kairos! We have a special issue focused on Science Communication and Writing Studies in a Multimodal World. You should read the introduction to the special issue by Karen Lunsford, Kara Mae Brown, Rebecca Chenoweth, Kenny Smith, and Amanda Stansell, which provides an excellent overview of the issue. This issue is a fun one—diverse, interesting contributions to understanding science communication. It was lovely for us on the editorial staff to read as we edited the issue. Thank you to the special issue editors for soliciting such excellent webtexts and shepherding them through peer review!
The special issue's focus on science communication is even more prescient and timely now than it was when Karen Lunsford first approached us about the idea a few years ago. Most of the webtexts in this issue were finalized in late 2024, before we knew that Donald J. Trump would be elected to his second term as President and before we knew just how quickly and forcibly his administration would assault science, higher education, and liberal democracy. I hesitate to write about the current administration, because things seem to be moving so quickly in the last eight months that it feels like every moment is a crisis, and the latest affront to liberalism and democracy quickly surpasses the previous one. As a journal editor, as a department chair, and as a citizen, I am exhausted by the onslaught against institutions of higher education, against science, against public health, against immigrants, against free speech, against journalism, against the law. Of course, exhaustion is the goal of proto-fascist (or, likely, at this point, fascist) actors: It is much harder to respond if the onslaught keeps coming; if you’re tired from worrying about and responding to issue X, it’s hard to have the energy to do much about issue Y, never mind issue YYY.
I am not sanguine about the future of higher education or academic research in the United States. (I don't think anyone is, honestly.) I don't have the space (nor the energy) to outline every concern, so allow me to hit on just three concerns. With the enrollment cliff hitting many universities and colleges, many colleges are already closing, and for those that don't, they will likely engage in austerity rhetorics to trim budgets, relying on neoliberal logics in response to declining enrollment. For research universities that have relied heavily on federal research dollars (which have been or are being withdrawn or cut drastically), I anticipate these austerity measures to hit even harder. (Indeed, this isn't a warning; it’s already happening.) Higher education is changing, and I doubt it will be recognizable as the same institution in a few years. We clearly need new arguments, new topoi, to defend the value of higher education under neoliberalism and rising fascistic governance. I don’t have answers to the "how" of this change, but as Michael Bernard-Donals (2023) showed in The Vulnerability of Higher Education, historically effective arguments about academic freedom and faculty governance and autonomy are no longer effective. We need new topoi for arguing for our value.
The need for new topoi to effectively argue for the value of higher education seems even more necessary as state governments are attacking higher education, my second concern. I chair an English department in Texas, and every two years from about February to May, I regularly (sometimes daily) check the news and legislative agenda online for updates on potential legislation that could impact higher education in the state. (Texas's legislature meets biennially instead of annually.) I won't go into detail (again, my exhaustion), but readers interested in the rhetorical strategies and effects of neoliberal, right-wing legislative attacks on higher education should read Ada Hubrig et al.'s (2024) recent College English article, "Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud: Using CRT to Name the Intersections of Texas's Legislative Harm."
My third concern is perhaps a bit more speculative (though, not that speculative, I don't think): Right-wing activists (including Trump) are filing lawsuits against journalists and media outlets at astonishing rates, and these media outlets, rather than fight, are often settling out of court (in Paramount's case, likely so they could secure FCC approval for their purchase by Skydance Media; refer to Bennett, 2025). The larger motive of these right-wing lawsuits is to ultimately overturn New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court decision that limited public figures' ability to sue journalists or media companies. In order for a defamation case to proceed, a litigant must show "actual malice," that is, that the publisher knew a statement was false or exhibited reckless disregard for facticity (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 2025). What has become known as the Sullivan Doctrine protects publishers from defamation or libel lawsuits when a minor fact is wrong but the publisher did not act in malice. It seems to be a clear aim of right-wing activists to overturn Sullivan (Peltz, 2024), and while the goal of overturning this doctrine will primarily affect journalism and media conglomerates, I can anticipate the overturning affecting academics and publishers: Publish a critique of the Trump administration and get a minor detail wrong on accident? You could get sued (and what academic publisher or academic has the funds to defend themselves against multi-million-dollar lawsuits in court?). Indeed, seeds have already been planted for going after academic publishers: In spring 2025, Department of Justice attorneys sent letters to five medical journals accusing them of potential bias (Fiore, 2025). I can easily imagine a near future in which a humanities journal publishes an article critical of the Trump administration that gets a single fact wrong and subsequently faces a defamation lawsuit that destroys the journal financially (and perhaps also the author of the article and the editors). (Caveat: I am no legal scholar, just a paranoid critic.)
Apologies for being all doom and gloom. And I don’t have any immediate suggestions about how to approach these problems, other than suggest that publishers in the field consider how they can protect themselves and the authors they publish, and that academics join organizations that provide liability insurance. (Unions are a good thing!)
Kairos Retreat and AI Policy
In radically other news, Kairos staff held a virtual retreat in May and June during which we discussed the future of the journal and our goals and values as a journal staff. It was a productive conversation that will, like many conversations, lead to more conversations about the future of the journal. We don’t have anything to share at this moment (except one point), so I imagine future Logging On columns will follow up on this conversation to share details about the future of the journal with readers.
One concrete outcome of the retreat was that the journal developed an AI policy, which I'll share in full here:
Generative AI can be used for different parts of the writing process, and different writers will find value in using it in different ways. While we don't see it as appropriate to dictate how an author chooses to use (or not use) generative AI applications, Kairos believes that the inherent flaws of generative AI trade a false sense of efficiency for effectiveness, and its use introduces errors that slow down our editorial review and copy-editing processes. We also must acknowledge that there is strong evidence that AI is bad for the environment, bad for scholarship, bad for language, bad for art, and bad for people. Relying on AI to generate content or to summarize prior scholarship is antithetical to the research enterprise, and we advise authors to be critical users of these tools and to ensure they carefully review and approve any output produced by these systems (as authors will be held accountable for it). We had originally noted that authors should cite AI when using its output—and for purposes of example or critique, this is still the case. However, AI output cannot be cited as an authorial source, as generative AI cannot be held accountable for its output. Similarly, authors should not treat generative AI as an interlocutor (that is, they should not report on AI output as if it were a conscious entity or as if it has the capacity to act rhetorically). Authors who use generative AI in their writing process should provide a statement acknowledging that they have done so, and in what capacities.
While we believe that AI should generally be avoided in the writing process, we also can see that it can be an effective tool for generating HTML and CSS code and assisting with the coding process as an author seeks to align their webtext design and argument. While AI can help with coding, the key design decisions should still be solely developed by the author and AI should only play a supportive role in the production of the webtext. If AI systems are used to essentially reproduce one of the many standard responsive templates freely available on the web, then it has added no value—AI coding should only be used to help an author realize their own creative vision. Authors will still need to review the code for accuracy and correctness. Authors should provide a brief statement acknowledging any use of AI for coding or design. Kairos prefers authors to use human-made art or graphics (and we encourage authors to engage their own creativity when it comes to visuals and design elements); however, AI produced images or text may be used in service of critique or commentary, just as we allow for fair use of published media for those same purposes.
Many thanks to Senior Editor Douglas Eyman for drafting and the retreat staff for ensuring this policy was ready for publication. It has been added to our "About" page.
AI Impacts
A quick note seems appropriate here as we are discussing AI. Are you finding it difficult to access Kairos? Is the website timing out or not connecting? That's AI at work! All of the big AI companies are busy sending many bots to scrape all of our webtexts — so many that they function in exactly the same way at Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack works: they take up all the bandwidth so regular users can't access the site. It's yet another indication that the purveyors of AI are not acting in good faith. We're working to try to mitigate the damage of these bots, but they're an infestation that is difficult to curtail. Our only advice at present is to wait a bit and try again if you aren't connecting right away.
Updated Reviews CFP
Our reviews section is always interested in reviews of new texts (of all kinds, from traditional print monographs to digital apps and games). We have a new list of texts we're interested in having reviewed — please take a look at the updated Call for Reviews and consider sending us a review that incorporates design to complement the evaluation of the work.
Comings and Goings
We have a lot of staff changes at Kairos to announce in this issue. Assistant Editors Madison Jones and Elizabeth Novotny are stepping away from Kairos. They've been integral to our production/editing cycle for four issues, and we're grateful for their time at and contributions to Kairos!
We have multiple staff changes for section editors. Over the summer, Tim Amidon stepped down as Topoi, Praxis, and PraxisWiki, (TPPW) Coeditor. Ashanka Kumari has moved from Reviews Co-Editor to TPPW Co-Editor to work alongside Kristi McDuffie. We've hired Dan Martin (long-time Associate Editor) to join Jonathan Marine as Reviews Co-Editor. Additionally, over the last few years, Rick Wysocki has taken on a lot of technical roles on the backend of the journal (particularly helping with tough coding challenges) and has been given a new role as Technical Editor, which he will occupy alongside his existing duties as Disputatio Co-Editor.
This leads me to changes at the top of the masthead: Christopher Andrews and Erin Kathleen Bahl are being promoted to Co-Editors. Chris and Erin have been Managing Editors for about 5 years, during which they've excellently managed peer review for submissions, and it's time for their promotion to Co-Editors. They will still be running peer review, but their title change signals their strong leadership in the journal. Additionally, Elizabeth Fleitz is being promoted from TPPW Co-Editor to Managing Editor, and she will be taking over what I’ve been doing for the last 5 years: managing the production and editing workflow.
Which is to say, I guess, that I've buried the lede: At the publication of this issue, I am stepping down as Editor of Kairos.
Logging Off
I am not good at goodbyes, so I won't belabor my departure from the journal with many words. I joined Kairos in 2013 as an Assistant Editor and rose through the ranks, becoming an Associate Editor, then Managing Editor (running peer review), then Co-Editor along with Cheryl Ball, then Editor (leading the production/editing cycle on my own when Cheryl became Senior Co-Editor). Working for Kairos has been a highlight of my career, and I've learned a lot from Cheryl, Doug Eyman, and many others on staff and who have published with the journal. One of the best things about working with Kairos is that you get to continually learn: not only about trends in the field and new research and ideas but also about technical issues and problems. Kairos has taught me to love editing as not only a technical but also an ethical practice, and for that, I am eternally grateful.
I want to thank Doug and Cheryl, whose leadership and mentorship is exemplary. When I wrote them earlier in the year that I needed to step aside to focus on other pursuits and my administrative duties, I told them: "I've learned more about generosity and patience and mentoring and also not tolerating bullshit from you two than perhaps anyone else in the field. You're troublemakers, but you also show so much care for others. I strive to be as good for the field, for colleagues, and for students as you two. You've also both shown so much trust in me over the last many years (as Managing Editor and as Editor) that I likely don't deserve but am eternally grateful for." I hope everyone in the field strives to be the sort of ethical leader that Cheryl and Doug exemplify.
While I am sad to leave Kairos, it is in strong hands. Chris, Erin, and Elizabeth are immensely competent and ethical, and I eagerly await the spring 2026 issue they are putting together.
While (as I discussed above) I am pretty pessimistic about the future of our country and of academia, I am optimistic for the future of Kairos. If this issue is any indication, scholars in the field will continue to publish dynamic, multimodal arguments about the field that continue to push boundaries in terms of ideas, genres, forms, modes, and technical/technological opportunities. It's an exciting time to publish multimodal arguments in the field, and I encourage you to reach out to the journal with inquiries or submissions!
References
Bennett, Goeff. (2025, July 25). The politics behind the $8B Paramount–Skydance merger. In PBS news hour. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-politics-behind-the-8b-paramount-skydance-merger
Bernard-Donals, Michael. (2023). The vulnerability of higher education. The Ohio State University Press.
Fiore, Kristina. (2025, April 25). NEJM gets letter from DOJ. MedPage Today. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/115256
Hubrig, Ada, Hsu, V. Jo, Cedillo, Christina V., & Wingard, Jennifer. (2024). Saying the quiet part out loud: Using CRT to name the intersections of Texas's legislative harm. College English, 87(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce2024872168
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. (2025, July 27). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan&oldid=1302754127
Peltz, Madeline. (2024, October 25). Project 2025 partner blog advocates for overturning New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Media Matters for America. https://www.mediamatters.org/justice-civil-liberties/project-2025-partner-blog-advocates-overturning-new-york-times-co-v
