The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 18 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
No Longer "Neutral Among Ends" - Liberal Versus Communitarian Ethics in Library and Information Science
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own interpretation · 7 Not checked yet · 6 No full text of the sources · 6 No basis given · 5 Sources not found · 2 Supported · 1 Own result
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Neutrality is a core facet of liberalism, and it is also a”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Macdonald, S., Birdi, B.: The concept of neutrality: a new approach. J. Document. 76(1), 333–353 (2020) source
The Conceptual Roots section calls neutrality a “hallmark of contemporary liberal thought” and explicitly refers to its “core place within contemporary liberalism.” These passages support the citing sentence’s paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a search of Library and Information Science Abstracts indicates that in only the first 9 months of 2020 alone, there are almost three times as many references in the LIS literature to neutrality as there was in the entire 1980s.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly the topic has been exercising the discourse of the profession more in the modern era”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These subjects are invariably white, male adults who are propertied or at least professional”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Benhabid, S.: The generalized and the concrete other. In: Benhabib, S., Cornell, D. (eds.), Feminism as Critique, pp. 77–95. Polity Press, London (1987)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Universalistic moral theories in the Western tradition from Hobbes to Rawls are substitutionalist, in the sense that the universalism they defend is defined surreptitiously by identifying the experiences of a specific group of subjects as the paradigmatic case of the human as such.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] Benhabid, S.: The generalized and the concrete other. In: Benhabib, S., Cornell, D. (eds.), Feminism as Critique, pp. 77–95. Polity Press, London (1987)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- Probably not a substantial claim. 38
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Neutrality is a core facet of liberalism, and it is also a”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Macdonald, S., Birdi, B.: The concept of neutrality: a new approach. J. Document. 76(1), 333–353 (2020) source
The Introduction and Scope calls neutrality a “core - yet controversial - value” within Library and Information Science. This directly supports the paraphrase that it is central yet contested. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is core of the neutrality that liberalism supports; no one idea of the good is to be considered above any other that is preferred by an autonomous person.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For Rawls the Kantian inspiration on his notion of justice as fairness was profound; he devotes an entire section (s40) of his A Theory of Justice to the Kantian influence [5].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice Mass. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1971) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can see here the core of the argument that if the situated self is a product of their culture or religion, then such attachments form a crucial part of their identity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Sandel has written extensively about what he calls the hollowing out of the public sphere, suggesting that it,”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Sandel, M.J.: Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Allen Lane, London (2009)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The self is defined as a”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6] Parvin, P., Chambers, C.: Political Philosophy - A Complete Introduction: Teach Yourself. Hodder & Stoughton, London (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As Voice has observed,”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Voice, P.: Rawls Explained: From Fairness To Utopia (Ideas Explained). Open Court. Kindle Edition. 2011. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most influential critique of liberalism in modern times has come from the communitarian critics.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Construing all religious convictions as products of choice may miss the role that religion plays in the lives of those for whom the observance of religious duties is a constitutive end, essential to their good and indispensable to their identity”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Sandel, M.J.: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 1998. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that such an approach can cause societal tension.”
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This autonomous individual has no theoretical connection with others or the community, it is her own rational processes of decision making that determine her own good.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Liberals assumed that what people happened to want fixed their values and ideals, whereas in truth, values and ideals fixed what people ought to want.Values and ideals, in addition, grew out of shared practices in society, which alone gave people a purpose in life.Liberal modernity had dislocated society and shattered its practices [12, pp. 351-352].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Fawcett, E.: Liberalism: The Life of an Idea. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2014) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key theme, then, is that liberalism fails to consider communities and their needs and influences, and the impact such links and ties have on us as individuals.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The emphasis of liberalism on the autonomy of the person has important strands that are of concern for the debate with communitarianism.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For MacIntyre, since all liberal ideas are essentially based on the rational voice that emerged during the Enlightenment with its focus on the universality of persons rather than community, history and culture, he believed liberalism as an entire concept was fundamentally flawed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It has also considered how a communitarian approach to social justice might offer a potentially inclusive ethic that respects diversity within the public discourse.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Communitarians believe that such a society can lead to”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9] Campbell, T. Rights: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, London (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like many battles within liberalism, the issue is with competing rights and how society resolves them.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This debate reflects the wider one that is happening in Western societies related to social justice.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Like other communitarians, he has”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Sandel, M.J.: Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? Allen Lane, London (2009)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If Sandel's point is proven, we can easily move from here to an argument that suggests any attacks on that religion, or other cultural identities, should potentially be considered attacks on the self.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, to many the right does not come before the good, the right is an intrinsic aspect of the self.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For him, then, the notion of the rational agent, atomised within society is a philosophical error.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Griffin argues that the”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Griffin, J.: On Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Applied to LIS practice then, in theory, this means no one users' preference is to be preferred over any others'.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It fails to consider how important notions of community, culture, group identity, and religion are to the identities of people.”
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the philosophical error in question is that the individual autonomy espoused by Rawls and other liberals is a flawed concept of personhood; a metaphysical error.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An individualistic society puts each and every person out on their own, with no good specified but that each individual sets themselves.This mitigates against a common good, of any kind, be it one based on a historical concept of the good, or a religious one.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Identifying with one group over a wider societal ethic poses problems for a cohesive society unless we are able to embrace respectful civic discourse.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The third generation, the rights of our time, of the last twenty-five years or so, consists of 'solidarity' rights, including, most prominently, group rights [7, p.256].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Griffin, J.: On Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is no great leap from there, then, to argue that any attacks on those elements of identity would constitute a potential harm to the person and should therefore be considered for remedy.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In other words the right comes before the good and”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6] Parvin, P., Chambers, C.: Political Philosophy - A Complete Introduction: Teach Yourself. Hodder & Stoughton, London (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The practical evil in question is that a system of justice based around concepts of autonomy and individualism is argued to be detrimental to society.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MacIntyre's critique goes beyond the notion of Rawls' version of liberalism and attacks the very foundations of liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For MacIntyre, humans are story-telling beings; we exist as products of the legacies we are a part of, and we inherit from this legacy our cultures, mores and values, and these are fundamental parts of our identity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current controversies dubbed”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To ban offensive or unpopular speech imposes on some the values of others and so fails to respect each citizen's capacity to choose and express his or her own opinions”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Sandel, M.J.: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 1998. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this idea we can see the core of some of the attacks on free speech espoused by group rights advocates, where the argument is that speech that targets someone based on group characteristics is a harm in that it attacks a fundamental aspect of a person's sense of self, and thus their autonomy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“there has been an emerging emphasis on group rights where previously disenfranchised sections of society seek to assert their positions from the point of view of equity, and ask other groups that are deemed to be more powerful and are argued to be hegemonic in society to consider their own status [3].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] Chandler, D., Munday, R.: Culture Wars a Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford University Press (2020) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The state, then, cannot impose any version of the good life on its citizens in a liberal democracy, it must respect the ability of citizens to rationally and autonomously choose their own way.”
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, by utilizing a communitarian ethic, one that favors respectful discourse, one that celebrates diversity of groups and peoples, while recognizing our own situation within our own groups, we stand the chance of a progressive future for our profession that supports a cohesive and respectful society.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At issue is not whether individual or communal claims should carry greater weight but whether the principles of justice that govern the basic structure of society can be neutral with respect to the competing moral and religious convictions its citizens espouse.The fundamental question, in other words, is whether the right is prior to the good [10, Kindle location 92].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Sandel, M.J.: Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 1998. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Neutrality has faced substantial challenge as an ethic within library and information science over the past ten years.
“As the concept of neutrality is under significant challenge as an ethic in LIS in the past decade”
The paper relies on this without support.
The rising attention to neutrality in LIS mirrors broader social justice concerns that treat neutrality as advancing one social group's outlook at the expense of others.
“This growing focus on the concept of neutrality within LIS reflects wider societal concerns related to social justice that consider neutrality as a value that, rather than guaranteeing detached subjectivity and equity, actually reflects the worldview of one particular group in society over, and to the detriment of, others:”
The paper relies on this without support.
Contemporary society is polarized along political, racial, and religious lines.
“The current times seems to many to feel bleak with polarization of society along political, racial, and religious grounds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Encouraging discourse is part of the mission of the library and information science profession.
“Part of the mission of the LIS profession is encouraging discourse, indeed it is one of the themes of this conference.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 1 A Contemporary Concern in LIS
“[2, p.181]”
§ References
“2. Benhabid, S. The generalized and the concrete other. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism as critique (pp. 77-95). London: Polity Press (1987).”
Citations
Cites
Rawls, J. (1971) · Princeton Readings in Political Thought · doi:10.4324/9781315097176-4 · Cited by 16,942
Rawls, J. (1971) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv19fvzzk.68 · Cited by 9,783
A Theory of Justice: Original Edition
Rawls, J. (1971) · doi:10.4159/9780674042605 · Cited by 9,496
Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Sandel, M. J. (1998) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511810152 · Cited by 3,906
LIBERALISM AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTICE
(2005) · doi:10.4324/9780203986820-14 · Cited by 1,073
Griffin, J. (2008) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238781.001.0001 · Cited by 870
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do
Lee, H. (2010) · Cited by 761
(2008) · Cited by 525
Communitarianism and Its Critics.
Selznick, P., & Bell, D. M., Jr. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2076120 · Cited by 512
The Generalized and the Concrete Other
Benhabib, S. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003059516-8 · Cited by 274
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- MacIntyre, A. After Virtue. 3rd edn., Bloomsbury Publishing, London (1981). 2007
- Haidt, J.: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Kindle Edition edn., Penguin Books Ltd., London (2012)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Justice in HCI: Current Streams, Considerations, and Ways Forward
Öhlund, L., & Wiberg, M. (2025) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwaf009 · Cited by 8
Steinerová, J., & Ondrišová, M. (2024) · Acta Informatica Pragensia · doi:10.18267/j.aip.237 · Cited by 5
Paton, C., & McMenemy, D. (2024) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-02-2023-0020 · Cited by 1
Self-citationHuong, T. T. (2025) · Cadernos de Educação Tecnologia e Sociedade · doi:10.14571/brajets.v18.nse3.159-172
Metadata
- Authors
- McMenemy, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McMenemy, David
- ORCID
- McMenemy, David
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 207-214
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W3119289932
- Semantic Scholar
- 7f16c76930a921304a577dab24c7291bd1c76f79
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 5.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Administration
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- communitarianism, liberalism, neutrality, common good, group identity, social justice, individual rights, collective rights, political philosophy, critical librarianship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: No Longer "Neutral Among Ends" - Liberal Versus Communitarian Ethics in Library and Information Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-3-030-71305-8_16
- The paper
- McMenemy, D. (2021). No Longer "Neutral Among Ends" - Liberal Versus Communitarian Ethics in Library and Information Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71305-8_16
