{"id":22430,"date":"2019-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-07-26T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/regthink\/academic-publishing-backlash\/"},"modified":"2023-04-26T20:06:35","modified_gmt":"2023-04-26T20:06:35","slug":"academic-publishing-backlash","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regthink-stage.mymvn.app\/en\/academic-publishing-backlash\/","title":{"rendered":"Anti-Liberal Backlash in Academic Publishing: Do We Have the Tools to Respond?"},"content":{"rendered":"
The summer 2019 issue of the AIS-affiliated journal Israel Studies<\/em>, titled \u2018Word Crimes: Reclaiming the Language of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict<\/a>\u2019 comprises of a set of polemic political arguments against human rights advocates, civil society actors and academic scholars who are critical of Israeli policies. Consisting of 18 short essays it reads like an extended op-ed in a far-right newspaper rather than an academic publication.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
With many unsourced assertions and little attempt to weigh opposing arguments or to contextualize, its authors make misleading factual claims, such as that there is no Israeli occupation<\/a>, that there are no Palestinian refugees<\/a>, that human rights activists and NGOs are an army of terrorist linked associations<\/a>, and that Israeli settlement and control have in fact improved the life of the Palestinians<\/a>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As expected, the publication of the volume engendered responses from AIS members and others<\/a>, calling for a new review of the issue, the resignation of IS editors and the establishment of a transparent peer review process. Some members of the IS Editorial Board resigned and some issued a strong letter of dissent<\/a>. The editors of the journal rejected the criticism<\/a> claiming that the framing, the choice of authors, the peer review process and the content of \u2018Word Crimes\u2019 were all rigorous and appropriate.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In the midst of the controversy, it might make sense to situate \u2018Word Crimes\u2019 within a larger and global phenomenon of anti-liberal backlash in academic publishing disguised as a matter of academic freedom. In recent years there seems to be a trend of academic journals publishing reactionary, often scientifically implausible pieces – deliberately or by \u2018mistake\u2019. The Israel Studies <\/em>issue is an example of the former. But while the episodes vary so do the types and levels of responses by the relevant academic communities.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Are journals and academic societies equipped to respond to the new trend of politicizing academic publishing? What are some of the tools available for them when \u2018mistakes\u2019 quickly transform into public outrage? Could this trend signify not only a crisis but also an opportunity for academic journals to reevaluate and reinforce review procedures, reexamine ethical codes and standards of responsibility?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The following is a quick summary of three recent episodes that demonstrate different types of responses by the relevant academic community and mostly \u2013 by the journals themselves. From the most procedural to the most substantive \u2013 these examples expose different and (sometimes) positive avenues that are open for journals and editorial boards to respond to such incidents:<\/div>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Bruce Gilley\u2019s \u2018The Case for Colonialism\u2019<\/a>, was published in the Third World Quarterly <\/em>in 2017. It glorified colonial rule and advocated for the recolonization of certain ex-colonies. Following complaints (a petition<\/a> urging to retract the article gathered more than 10,000 signatures) and resignation of 15 members of the board<\/a> – the article was withdrawn by the journal at the request of the academic editor and in agreement with the author. The publisher\u2019s retraction statement refers to \u201cdeath threats\u201d against the editor as a reason for the retraction: \u201cTaylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay\u201d. The article was recently republished by the National Association of Scholars<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  2. Published in 2017 in the Journal of the History of International Law<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>John Bennett\u2019s The Forgotten Genocide in Colonial America: Reexamining the 1622 Jamestown Massacre within the Framework of the UN Genocide Convention<\/a>\u2019, put forward the argument that English atrocities in colonizing north America could be justified as a reasonable response to violence from native Americans. The article was available online six months before anyone noticed and complained. But once it was picked up the repercussion was strong.75 international lawyers and legal historians signed a letter calling for swift removal of the article and threatening not to publish in the journal<\/a>. Two members of the editorial board resigned. The journal responded with a statement: \u2018publication by the JHIL does not imply any agreement or endorsement by the editors or by the academic advisory board of the opinions expressed in the article\u201d. The editorial board, maintaining that the decision to publish the paper was a procedural mistake, reexamined and strengthened the peer review and editorial process and published new review guidelines<\/a>. They studied the international ethical guide code<\/a> of conduct and decided that retraction is not recommendable in this case because \u2018the article doesn\u2019t rely on hard evidence it can hardly be plainly wrong in a technical sense.\u2019In contrast the scholarly rebuttal and refute of the argument \u2013 they claimed – is the best course. The chief editor explained this position at the Annual meeting of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) and a Committee was set up among leading journal editors to draft guidelines for dealing with editorial politics. Finally the journal held a conference on the incident titled: \u2018Politics and the Histories of International Law<\/a>\u201d and is committed to publish the papers from the conference in a special issue.<\/li>\n
  3. The American Historical Review (AHR) published (also in 2017) a book review by Raymond Wolters<\/a>, a historian criticized as expressing white supremacy opinions<\/a>. The review criticized Ansley Ericson\u2019s book, Making the Unequal Metropolis: School Desegregation and Its Limits<\/em><\/a> for not taking into consideration racial differences between black and white students and \u2018saying nothing about sociobiology<\/em>\u2019. Following complaints the editor took the following steps:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n