Abstract Scholarly publications are often regarded as “information” by default. They are collected, organized, preserved, and made accessible as knowledge records. However, the instances of article retraction, misconduct and malpractices of researchers and the replication crisis have raised concerns about the informativeness and evidential qualities of information. Among many factors, knowledge production has moved away from “normal science” under the systemic influences of platformization involving the datafication and commodification of scholarly articles, research profiles and research activities. This article aims to understand the platformization of information by examining how research practices and knowledge production are steered by market and platform mechanisms in four ways: (a) ownership of information; (b) metrics for sale; (c) relevance by metrics, and (d) market‐based competition. In conclusion, the article argues that information is platformized when platforms hold the dominating power in determining what kinds of information can be disseminated and rewarded and when informativeness is decoupled from the normative agreement or consensus co‐constructed and co‐determined in an open and public discourse.

This article addresses the question “what is information?” by comparing the meaning of the term “information” and epistemological assumptions of three theories in library and information science: the “Shannon‐Weaver model,” Brookes’ interpretation of Popper's World 3, and the Data‐Information‐Knowledge‐Wisdom model. It shows that the term “information” in these theories refers to empirical entities or events and is conceptualized as having causal powers upon human minds. It is argued that the epistemological assumptions have led to the negligence of the cultural and social aspects of the constitution of information (i.e., how something is considered to be and not to be information) and the unquestioned nature of science in research methodologies.

Mixed methods research (MMR) has been described as the third research paradigm that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods. The mixing of research methods requires an epistemological framework that embraces the “reality” uncovered by different research methods. Three formal ontological categories are introduced for deconstructing the polarized view of reality in objectivism and relativism and for differentiating the nature and characteristics of objective, subjective, and normative validity claims as well as the conditions for justifying “objectivity” in social research. The characterization of “information” as objective, subjective, and normative‐evaluative simultaneously demands the study of conditions of information‐related phenomena that may call for mixed methods research in library and information science.