Dear Mr. Belcher,

With thanks for taking the time to provide your perspectives and questions.  Most of your points are addressed in my original email in this thread, but with the indulgence of this email list and at the risk of repetition, I shall endeavour to answer your questions and hopefully clarify a few points in the process:

1. While I am intrigued that an accusatory and polemical tone is used to criticise me for using an accusatory and polemical tone, I have no problem with such a tone for discussing issues--especially regarding a journal that states that it is polemical.  Since you are bothered by this tone, you might well be correct that others are bothered by it too.  I shall try to be less accusatory and less polemical in this email.  I apologise for initially discouraging your, and perhaps others', involvement in this discussion and I also apologise if I do not succeed in achieving a more neutral tone here.

2. Regarding "an ulterior motive at work" and "what are the motives?", it is simple to hide behind insinuations; evidenced or fabricated drivers of my query; or suggestions about dark intents.  None of these actions addresses the topic of academic accountability.  Irrespective of musings regarding my motives or my character--and irrespective of my tone, of my approach, or of my mistakes regarding this issue--the topic of academic accountability has been raised by Prof. Castree in two of his publications amongst many other authors and venues (see below).  I hope that this discussion would focus on that topic.

3. Thank you for sharing the anecdote about your trouble with a journal, but correcting typos, including in author order, does not cover the meaning or intent of academic accountability.  To assist with that understanding, I append below some references.  I could provide more, if that would be useful.  A helpful starting point regarding aspects of academic accountability and the topic's importance are the two articles that I referenced in my original email:
     Castree, Noel and Matthew Sparke.  2000.  "Introduction:  Professional Geography and the Corporatization of the University: Experiences, Evaluations, and Engagements".  Antipode, vol 32, no 3, pp. 222-229.
     Castree, Noel.  2002.  "Border geography".  Area, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 103-112.

4. Have I "gone through every journal in geography and the social sciences in order to check whether they have accountability procedures"?  No.  First, partly for the same reason that I did not email all the Editorial Board members--that would seem to be excessive; although, if that is a weak excuse, then perhaps I am wrong and you should openly encourage me to contact Antipode's entire Editorial Board and as many journals as I have time to email and follow up with.  Second, not all journals have Antipode's reputation for editorial openness.  Third, not all journal editors have published their own calls for academic accountability.  For the latter two reasons, Antipode seemed to be a reasonable journal to start with in order to consider this issue.  You might be correct that I made a mistake and that Antipode's reputation is not deserved.

5. I disagree that moralising an issue is "petty grade school banter".  To me, ethics is a serious and important topic and should be addressed in a serious and detailed manner.  Examples of the seriousness with which academia takes ethics are the references below; the journals that have accountability procedures (I gave one example in my previous email); journals that have retracted papers for plagiarism, falsifying research results, or other forms of academic misconduct, irrespective of whether or not the journal has a formal accountability procedure; and the national laws and research councils that demand ethical reviews of research practices prior to carrying out research work.  None of them suggests that accountability and ethics are creating a "surveillance society".  Should any journals be exempt from such ethical standards?

6. Your opinion regarding journal accountability and your arguments against it, including the suggestion of tautology, are useful to hear.  Journals that have an accountability procedure disagree with your stance.  Prof. Castree appears to disagree with your stance in theory, according to his writings, but appears to agree with your stance in practice, according to his actions.  Prof. Castree and Antipode's Editorial Board could have put forward arguments against an accountability procedure, as you do, but they did not.  Instead, they avoided addressing the topic and appeared not to be particularly engaged with their editorial duties.  Perhaps they should not have acted otherwise and perhaps these topics are minor issues--as you suggest, not worth worrying about or acting on.  As noted throughout this email, many disagree with that stance and they see the topic as being important enough for further discussion, e.g. the papers, and action, e.g. developing
 and acting on an accountability procedure.

7. You ask "Is it not equally radical for me just to trust Noel and Wendy?"  Quite possibly.  In that case, would you trust Prof. Larner's own (tautological?) response that the reason for Antipode not having an accountability procedure is that Antipode has not had one before?  Or would you instead prefer to trust Prof. Castree's publications regarding the importance of proper academic accountability?

Thank you for your thoughts and for any continuing discussion,

Ilan

-------------------

Some references on academic accountability:

Area, vol. 36, no. 3, Various commentaries on the peer review process.

Beaumont, J., M. Loopmans, and J. Uitermark.  2005.  “Politicization of research and the relevance of geography: some experiences and reflections for an ongoing debate”.  Area, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 118-126.

COSEPUP.  1995.  On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: COSEPUP (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy), National Academies, National Academies Press.

Mainguy, Gaell, Mohammad R. Motamedi, and Daniel Mietchen. 2005. “Peer Review--The Newcomers’ Perspective.” PLoS Biology, vol. 3, no. 9, online 
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326

van Rooyen, S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith.  1999.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.  BMJ, vol. 318, pp. 23-27.

Wennerås, C. and A. Wold.  1997.  “Nepotism and sexism in peer-review”.  Nature, vol. 387, pp. 341-343.