.. and this was the original statement by the editor:
http://www.tandfonline.com/pb-assets/TWQ-response-Sept-2017.pdf
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mikko Joronen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 20 September 2017 08:26:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "The case for colonialism", any response from twq yet?Hi David,This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Any use, disclosure or reproduction without the sender’s explicit consent is unauthorised and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify Northumbria University immediately and permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the University. Northumbria University email is provided by Microsoft Office365 and is hosted within the EEA, although some information may be replicated globally for backup purposes. The University cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and/or amended.
This was shared by Vijay Prashad in Facebook:
19 September 2017
LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY
Dear Shahid Qadir, Taylor & Francis, Colleagues and Interested Public,
We are deeply disappointed by the unacceptable process around the publication of Bruce Gilley’s Viewpoint essay, “The case for colonialism,” which was published in Third World Quarterly without any consultation with the Editorial Board. As International Editorial Board Members, we were told in an email on 15 September from Shahid Qadir that this piece was put through the required double-blind peer review process. We asked for these reviews to be sent to the Editorial Board, and they were not.
We have now been informed by our colleagues who reviewed the piece for a Special Issue that they rejected it as unfit to send to additional peer review, and they stated in an email to us:
“We would question the editorial process that has led to the publication of the piece. It was initially offered to guest editors Dr John Narayan and Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins as an article to consider for inclusion in the aforementioned special issue. The guest editors relayed their unease with the article and rejected considering the piece for peer review. It has subsequently come to light that the article was later reviewed as a standard article and rejected by at least one reviewer and then repackaged as an opinion piece.”—email from Dr John Narayan (Birmingham City University)
Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins (Warwick University)
Dr Kehinde Andrews (Birmingham City University)
Dr Eugene Nulman (Birmingham City University)
Dr Goldie Osuri (University of Warwick)
Dr Lucia Pradella (King’s College London)
Professor Vijay Prashad (Trinity College)
Dr Sahar Rad (SOAS, University of London)
Professor Satnam Virdee (University of Glasgow)
Dr Helen Yaffe (London School of Economics)We have also been informed through correspondence between Prof Ilan Kapoor and our colleague who was the peer-reviewer, after the piece was rejected by the Special Issue editors, that her review also rejected the Viewpoint. Thus, the fact is established that this did not pass the peer-review when we have documentation that it was rejected by three peer reviewers.
As the Viewpoint did not pass the double-blind peer review as claimed by the editor in the statement he issued in the name of the journal, it must be retracted and a new statement issued.
The Viewpoint fails criterion #1 of the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE guidelines that state: “Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).” https://publicationethics.org/…/Retractions_COPE_gline_fina…
These COPE guidelines are Taylor & Francis’s reference documents for ethics of retracting a publication the editorial board was told in an email on 18 September by Shahid Qadir.Thus, Bruce Gilley’s Viewpoint essay, “The case for colonialism” must be retracted, as it fails to provide reliable findings, as demonstrated by its failure in the double-blind peer review process.
We all subscribe to the principle of freedom of speech and the value of provocation in order to generate critical debate. However, this cannot be done by means of a piece that fails to meet academic standards of rigour and balance by ignoring all manner of violence, exploitation and harm perpetrated in the name of colonialism (and imperialism) and that causes offence and hurt and thereby clearly violates that very principle of free speech.
The Editor of TWQ has issued a public statement without any consultation with the Editorial Board that is not truthful about the process of this peer-review, and thus, as we fully disagree with both the academic content of the Viewpoint and the response issued in the name of the journal, we are forced to resign immediately from the Editorial Board of Third World Quarterly.
As scholars, we remain ever-committed to the ideals that this journal has stood for over the past 40 years, and we would consider serving on an Editorial Board under different editorial arrangements.
Sincerely,
Ilan Kapoor (York University, Canada)
Stefano Ponte (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark + Duke University, US)
Lisa Ann Richey(Roskilde University, Denmark + Duke University, US)
Mahmood Mamdani (Makerere Institute of Social Research, Uganda + Columbia University, US)
Asef Bayat (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, US)
Naila Kabeer (London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Katie Willis (Royal Holloway University of London, UK)
David Simon (Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Sweden + Royal Holloway Univ. of London, UK)
Walden Bello (State University of New York at Binghamton, US)
Giles Mohan (The Open University, UK)
Ayesha Jalal (Tufts University, US)
Uma Kothari (University of Manchester, UK)
Vijay Prashad (Trinity College, US)
Klaus John Dodds (Royal Holloway University of London, UK)
Richard Falk (Princeton University, US)
Best,***************
Mikko Joronen
Academy Research Fellow
Docent in Political Geography
Space and Political Agency Research Group (SPARG), JKK
Academy of Finland Center of Excellence (RELATE)
University of Tampere
RECENT PUBLICATIONS:
Spaces of waiting: Politics of precarious recognition in the occupied West Bank. Environment and Planning D (2017).
Waiting and claiming rights. Precarities of settler colonial recognition. Society and Space (open site) (2017).
'Refusing to be a victim, refusing to be an enemy'. Form-of-life as resistance in the Palestinian struggle against settler colonialism. Political Geography (2017).
Few notes on ontology and destituent power. A Reply to Gordon. Political Geography (2017)
Politicizing ontology. Progress in Human Geography (2016, with Häkli)
'Death comes knocking on the roof': Thanatopolitics of ethical killing during Operation Protective Edge in Gaza. Antipode (2016).
Politics of being-related. On onto-topologies and ‘coming events’. Geografiska Annaler B (2016)
The (bio)politicization of neuroscience in Australian early years policies: Fostering brain-resources as human capital. Journal of Education Policy (2016, with Millei).
Politics of precarious childhood. Ill treatment of Palestinian children under the Israeli military order. Geopolitics (2016).
ACADEMIA: https://utu.academia.edu/MikkoJoronen
RESEARCH GATE: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mikko_Joronen/publications
SPARG: www.uta.fi/jkk/en/research/themes/sparg/index.html
RELATE: http://www.oulu.fi/maantiede/node/15990
On 20 Sep 2017, at 10.20, David Alexander Scheuing <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hey all,
Before this issue gets lost again here, I quickly wanted to ask if there have been any responses yet by either the editorial board or single editors of twq publicly against this piece?
I have also alerted some people who have been cited and might see themselves misquoted by the piece so they could think of replying or dealing with the piece otherwise.
Thank you for alerting the critical community,BestDavid.
Interesting article - unfortunately it also illustrates that the non-White population of Africa played a large role in the enslavement of their companions - look at the two unchained guys with guns, guarding the slaves about to be transhipped, presumably, to the Americas or Caribbean. Arabs often were the traders here. This issue of 'who are the slavers' as well as 'who are the enslaved' persists today. The whole slavery thing was a complex knot of war, PoWs, economics, the selective application of Islamic, and Euro-Christian, ethics (who was allowed to get the benefit of these ethics and who wasn't). For example in the 1537 Pope Paul III threatened to excommunicate slave traders, and in 1688 the Quakers declared slavery to be a sin. Shame that the vast majority of White Christians ignored these lofty ideals.
http://fooddeserts.org/images/000RaceEquality.htm
Dr Hillary J. Shaw
Director and Senior Research Consultant
Shaw Food Solutions
Newport
Shropshire
TF10 8QE
www.fooddeserts.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Andueza Justiniano, Luis <[log in to unmask]>
To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]>; hillshaw <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Sep 16, 2017 10:33 am
Subject: Re: "The case for colonialism", outrage and response
To follow up; just came across this response-- https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/09/a-quick-reminder-of-why-colonialism-was-bad
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers <CRIT-GEOG-[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Hillary Shaw <0000004f24593c23-dmarc-[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 September 2017 12:54:10
To: CRIT-GEOG-[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "The case for colonialism", outrage and responsePrecisely. That was my intial concerns with the article (as a geographer interested in the history, development, economy, spaces, of Europe generally - specifically of its food and general retail and consumption systems). The concepts of governance were loosely used/glossed over - said in an earlier CG email, the 'governance issues' he mentions re postcolonial developing states have also occurred in Europe, e.g. Ireland, Scotland, Catalonia, Czechoslovakia, and especially Yugoslavia. And these governance issues can be blamed on the artifical national boundaries created especially in Africa, but also in S America, by those European colonisers.
You've got to love the spatially incompatible aims of the French in creating a continuous east-west bloc from Senegal to Djibouti with the British aims of a north-south bloc from Egypt to S Africa. Maybe, at Fashoda, they could have built an underpass or flyover? Then tossed a coin as to who got the ground level route? OK enough frivolity.But I did get a laugh out of his description of Britain, without the Roman occupation, as a 'backward Druid state'. One might walk from the City of London to the Isle of Dogs and think.....if only.
Dr Hillary J. Shaw
Director and Senior Research Consultant
Shaw Food Solutions
Newport
Shropshire
TF10 8QE
www.fooddeserts.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Linstead <[log in to unmask]>
To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <CRIT-GEOG-[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu, Sep 14, 2017 10:54 am
Subject: Re: "The case for colonialism", outrage and response
It also expects us to understand the meaning of the term before we use it.
On 14 Sep 2017 10:46 am, "Willis N. Churnocht" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
What could be more critical and radical than putting forward a case defending colonialism?
Bravo to this chap for being brave, breaking the mold and transcending the confines of left-wing thinking.
Academia asks us to think critically, after all.