Hypatia’s Associate Editors Resign


In the wake of the resignation of Hypatia’s Editor and the editor of Hypatia Reviews Online, owing to the controversy over the publication of a paper on transracialism, eight of the journal’s Associate Editors have now resigned, according to a letter circulating among philosophers this weekend. 

Here is the letter:

We, the members of the Board of Associate Editors of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, are deeply disappointed that the Editors and members of the journal’s nonprofit board have been unwilling to collaborate with us toward a constructive solution to the current crisis, utilizing the processes for reviewing and changing policies outlined within the journal’s approved governance documents. As scholars who highly value Hypatia and who have dedicated a great deal of time and energy to its success, we are troubled by the recent statements by the Editors and the nonprofit board (posted on Hypatia’s website and Daily Nous on July 20, 2017). We are sending this response to members of the feminist philosophy community who have leadership positions in various feminist associations and journals because we do not wish to fuel speculations and inaccurate and harmful narratives about Hypatia of the kind that have circulated widely on the internet since this crisis broke in April.

On Monday, July 17 the nonprofit board gave us an ultimatum of either resigning by noon on July 19 or they would suspend the journal’s governance documents and, thus, the authority of the Board of Associate Editors. At that time, the nonprofit board also informed us that they planned to make a public statement in which they would announce either our resignation or their suspension of the Journal’s governance documents, depending on our response to their ultimatum. They also informed us of the Editors’ impending resignation, retroactive to July 1. Their recent public statement claims that they have “temporarily” suspended our authority. Nonetheless, their unilateral decision is a de facto suspension of Hypatia’s governance documents and a firing of us.

We strongly disagree with several of the claims made in both the Editors’ and the nonprofit board’s public statements explaining this action. Throughout this controversy, we have been guided by commitments to excellence, academic integrity, and inclusiveness that have long informed Hypatia’s vision and have established it as a leading feminist philosophy journal. Additionally, we remain steadfast in our commitment to working within the letter and spirit of the journal’s current governance document that was approved in 2012 by Hypatia’s Editors, Associate Editors, and founding members of the nonprofit board. To this end, we have repeatedly requested that the Editors and the nonprofit board engage in a mediation process with us, facilitated by a feminist philosopher acceptable to all parties. Our aim in making this proposal was to initiate a collaborative process in which we could discuss our differences, identify common goals, and find a constructive way forward for the good of Hypatia. Much to our regret, the Editors and the non-profit board rebuffed these requests, maintaining that we are solely responsible for the controversy in ways that, in our view, systematically deflect attention from the substantial philosophical and methodological issues that we see as the heart of the matter. Despite our persistent requests for mediation, the nonprofit board stated their willingness to engage in mediation only after they had posted their public statement, suspended our authority, and, de facto, suspended the journal’s governance document. We find it untenable to participate in such a process on these terms.

We whole-heartedly endorse the COPE guidelines cited by the nonprofit board, and we regard Hypatia’s governance structure and guidelines as living documents that should be held open to revision in the face of new challenges. However, while we have stressed the importance of acting within the framework for policy review set out in the journal’s governance document in order to address the crisis, the nonprofit board has made it clear that they were prepared to set those guidelines aside, using the legal power they have as signators to the publishing contract with Wiley-Blackwell. Hypatia’s nonprofit board was formed in 2008 for the purpose of handling the financial matters of the journal and signing contracts with the publisher. Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors has existed since the journal was established and is identified, both in Hypatia’s governance documents and in the nonprofit board’s own operating guidelines, as centrally responsible for reviewing and revising the journal’s policies and, more generally, for ensuring Hypatia’s continuity as a journal founded and sustained by a community of scholars rather than by a corporate institution. We continue to believe that the best prospects for meeting current challenges lie in working within this framework, not setting it aside.

We understand that feminist philosophers are divided in their opinions about the letter we posted in May. We would like to emphasize that our letter neither called for retraction nor impugned any individual actions on the part of the journal’s editors. Instead, our letter clearly stated that it is the journal’s review process, not a particular, individual execution of that process, that requires review. A commitment to undertake such a review would make it clear that we take seriously public critiques of the journal and would be necessary if Hypatia is to realize the ideals of inclusiveness that we highly value. We understand that our decision to issue the letter was unusual, and that some members of our community consider it an abdication of our responsibilities as Associate Editors. To those colleagues, we ask that you consider carefully the position we have held since we drafted that letter: that our duties as Associate Editors of the flagship journal of feminist philosophy include being responsive to the voices of members of historically marginalized groups who have found philosophy in general, and feminist philosophy in particular, indifferent and at times hostile to their contributions. 

We are greatly concerned that the most recent public statements from the Editors and the nonprofit board will deepen a split in the feminist philosophy community. It is our hope that, as a community, we will opt instead to respond by reflecting upon, and seeking to ameliorate, the various ways in which feminist philosophy has not yet lived up to its ethical commitment to transform itself, and philosophy as a whole, into a discipline that honors the perspectives and welcomes the scholarly contributions of historically marginalized groups, including people of color, trans* people, disabled people, and queer people. The current controversy did not begin with our letter; it is instead grounded in long-standing differences and tensions within the field. It is precisely our respect for Hypatia that informs our belief that what is at stake here is not only the continued existence and relevance of this particular journal, one that has done so much to establish feminist philosophy as a respected and valued scholarly field, but also the very identity and parameters of feminist philosophy itself. This is a pivotal moment in which we need to come together to ensure that our practices and scholarship are appropriately responsive to relevant work by those who are marginalized within the discipline of philosophy.

We deeply regret that the Editors and nonprofit board were unwilling to engage with us in systematically reflecting on these issues and collaboratively addressing their implications for Hypatia. The declaration by the nonprofit board that they are suspending our authority means that we cannot fulfill our duties as Associate Editors in accordance with the journal’s governance documents. Regrettably, we see no alternative but to resign from Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors with this letter.

Linda Martín Alcoff, Ann Cahill, Kim Q. Hall, Kyoo Lee, Mariana Ortega, Ásta Sveinsdóttir, Alison Wylie, George Yancy

guest
39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Gauthier
4 years ago

“…as a community…” — This seems to me, to be at the core of a number of problems in the broader culture today. Confusion with precisely what your relationship is to other people, in various contexts. With the advent of social media, the use of the word “community” has exploded, but it has come to mean everything from your immediate family, to your work colleagues, to anyone who’s ever followed you on facebook. This has the effect of muddling expectations and responsibilities. Assumptions are made about what it means to “be in a community” (and that what you’re engaged with is in fact a “community”), and what that community’s “ethical commitments” are, and then when those assumptions don’t bear out, the resulting cognitive dissonance explodes in a public chaos of acrimony and recrimination.

The notion of “community”, as it seems to be used by the authors of this letter, assumes as a defining feature, a certain moral and ideological hegemony as an end-goal: “…to transform itself, and philosophy as a whole, into a discipline that honors the perspectives and welcomes the scholarly contributions of historically marginalized groups, including people of color, trans* people, disabled people, and queer people…” (whatever that means). It obviously implies that such is not already the case — and worse, that the author of the original article, Hypatia, and “philosophy as a whole”, are not “appropriately responsive to relevant work by those who are marginalized within the discipline of philosophy” — i.e., are all wilfully, and irrationally, arrayed against this so-called “community”.

So, this “community”, and it’s self-defined enemies, sound to me much more like a political faction fighting to wrest territorial and narrative control from an occupying force, rather than a simple group of scholars disputing some fine point of doctrine or methodology. But I suppose this shouldn’t surprise me. Academia is a cloistered political class, most of whose members know no other experience of life, than that of struggling for political dominance in an ever shrinking kingdom. Making your battles public would then be a kind of call-out to foreign allies.Report

John Little, Sr.
John Little, Sr.
Reply to  Greg Gauthier
4 years ago

The core of the problems identified above, is the inability to handle multiple variables. Go figure. John Little, Sr.Report

Cautious Until Tenured
Cautious Until Tenured
4 years ago

The fallacy here is the old fallacy of equating “support for marginalized individuals” with the holding of particular views in ethics, epistemology, and (more broadly) philosophical methodology. By all accounts, Tuvel is a strong supporter of marginalized individuals. Her crimes, such as they were, were to argue for the claim that transracialism and transgenderism are morally on a par, and do so without endorsing viewpoint epistemology as a guiding philosophical methodology. Neither of these commitments are in any way harmful to marginalized people. Tuvel wrote in support of transracialism in order to support transracial individuals, who are certainly marginalized in the philosophical community, and in society more broadly. And it is no sin to argue for that claim without taking on the methodological commitments of viewpoint epistemology.

This statement depicts the associate editors as the aggrieved individuals who were steamrolled by an editorial board – and indeed, a philosophical profession as a whole – that is systematically involved in the oppression of marginalized groups. The philosophy profession that I know goes out of its way to be supportive of individuals of oppressed groups. That Tuvel was ever held up as an example of someone who contributes to systematic oppression is compelling evidence that this whole affair was never about marginalized individuals. It is about whether it is acceptable to think logically about issues related to race and gender. And if the former associate editors sincerely believe that an untenured academic who thinks logically about race and gender ought to be publicly pilloried for her views and for her methods, I’m rather glad that those individuals are no longer editors of a journal of philosophy.Report

LK McPherson
LK McPherson
Reply to  Cautious Until Tenured
4 years ago

“…transracial individuals, who are certainly marginalized in the philosophical community…”

This is effective parody — especially the “certainly” bit.

“The philosophy profession that I know goes out of its way to be supportive of individuals of oppressed groups.”

This could be parody — especially the “goes out of its way” bit.

“And if the former associate editors sincerely believe that an untenured academic who thinks logically about race…”

Appropriately criticizing the former associate editors’ conduct does not require presuming the “logically about race” bit. Some of them have thought far more about race than the vast majority of folks suddenly qualified to opine on philosophy of race.Report

Dale Miller
4 years ago

At least they signed this one.Report

Grad Student4
Grad Student4
4 years ago

First, it is ridiculous to think the Directors are in the wrong here. The AE’s assert that their letter was to urge for a review of the process which “would make it clear that we take seriously public critiques of the journal and would be necessary if Hypatia is to realize the ideals of inclusiveness that we highly value.” It is simply not the AE’s place to make such public statements. Surely they could have penned a letter to the Board urging such a review. But as the Directors noted, the AE’s do not speak for Hypatia. What the AE’s did was not to urge for a review (internally), but rather invite a firestorm of outside academic indignation from “both sides” of the issue.

Second, this seems all to come down to standpoint epistemology. The AE’s claim that they are merely trying to be “responsive” to “the voices of members of historically marginalized groups who have found philosophy in general, and feminist philosophy in particular, indifferent and at times hostile to their contributions.” What do they mean here? That journals in a double-blind peer review process have in recent times found a way to reject academic submissions based on the author’s membership in an historically marginalized group?

No. I think what they mean here is simply that reviewers, and perhaps journals at large, have been skeptical (perhaps even hostile) to standpoint epistemology, and that such a methodological commitment that may come out in papers submitted by certain members of marginalized groups. It isn’t clear why disagreeing with a certain, largely controversial epistemology expresses “hostility” to the contributions of marginalized individuals themselves.

It is further cemented by their statement that they wish to “hono[r] the perspectives and welcom[e] the scholarly contributions of historically marginalized groups, including people of color, trans* people, disabled people, and queer people.” How are their scholarly contributions, as of now, “unwelcome”?

Their beef is that we do not ‘honor the perspectives’ of members of marginalized groups, i.e. that we don’t endorse a certain epistemology. It seems that the fighting ground to advocate for such an epistemology isn’t on the pages of Facebook, or in the public statements of AE’s who are willfully disregarding the public-communication processes of their journal. The place for this is in philosophy journals. If you want to make the case that somehow rejecting an epistemology is (I presume they would use the word) ‘violent’ against historically marginalized groups, make that case in peer-reviewed articles.

(I should note that even if we *do* endorse a standpoint epistemology, it is absurd to argue that any article which does not incorporate ‘perspectives’ of members of marginalized groups is automatically subpar or wrong.)Report

Paul Whitfield
Paul Whitfield
4 years ago

I think their words wholly appropriate, if not admirable.Report

JJ
JJ
4 years ago

I think the problem is perhaps in blurring philosophy with activism. From the point of view of the editor, the board, or certainly many (or most) philosophers, the conduct of the AE’s is utterly unprofessional and unethical. It is, in a way, a kind of Trump strategy – instead of focusing on the arguments and arguing through appropriate channels against Tuvel’s view and for theirs, they are using social media, name calling, and so forth – #Fake Arguments; Harming People! Retract! This is what it looks to most philosophers, I suspect. But from the AE’s point of view, this is perhaps the point as they do not think that the appropriate channels and arguments they would or could offer would actually do anything. The system is bad, rigged, unjust and so working within it is doomed to have no effect, make no change to what they see as positive, and so fort. So, of course, they act so as to break it. Their viewpoint is that of activism. This is, to my mind, in a way unsolvable problem. On the one hand, activism – especially of the radical sort – has no other goal, ultimately than the destruction of the old system and establishment of the new one. There is no point at which it will say “OK – things are now good” – things will never be good enough. Until they take over and new activism (against this one) will spring up. On the other hand, philosophy is not activism. It gets confused with it sometimes, but it is not activism – activism is politics. And, historically, the most terrifying activism came from philosophers. So, in any case, my sense is nothing good will come out of any of this.Report

Paul Prescott
4 years ago

I’d like to share a point raised by a friend of mine on Facebook (who wishes to remain anonymous, at least at the moment). I share her view, and I have partially revised it (with her permission) to better articulate my own personal views on the issue in question.

Here is the concern:

When the associate editors initially apologized for the publication of Rebecca Tuvel’s article, it struck me as immediately obvious that this was inappropriate, regardless of any problems with the article. Surely only the editor can speak for the journal. Now an outside advisory organization (COPE) has advised Hypatia that the associate editors did speak inappropriately. Prof. Scholz has resigned, and the board of directors has more or less forced the associate editors to resign.

In my view, Hypatia has been among the best journals available over the past several decades. And now it is damaged, possibly beyond repair.

Here’s a question that has repeatedly occurred to me about all this: what was going on when the (mostly female) associate editors didn’t defer, in obviously appropriate ways, to their female editor? It seems to me that the appropriate lines of authority were not respected or understood by all the dramatis personae, and I find myself wondering if this failure was due to (unconscious) sexism.

In the interest of open disclosure, I have served as a reviewer for Hypatia during the time that Prof. Scholtz was editor (although not for the article by Tuvel). And it is my view that Prof. Scholz deserved a great deal more deference and respect than she has been given.Report

Philodemus
Philodemus
4 years ago

I guess I belong to an “historically marginalized group,” as I’m mixed race and from a humble economic background (the marginalization of poorer people, I would note, doesn’t get mentioned by the AEs). I’ve encountered racism in my day, including racist slurs being used against me or being used in my presence. Sincerely, I would much rather experience the “violence” of such racism everyday of the week than endure the very real harms that Prof Tuvel has endured largely because of these AEs. And the fact that they are capable of ignoring or abstracting away from those harms, attempting to have us focus only on broader systemic or methodological issues, is so frustrating to me. It’s just so evasive and wrong I can hardly rationally discuss it. She is owed a public apology from these people and they don’t even include a weak “sorry you got hurt” non-apology. They don’t even address her. It’s as if they think she deserved it.Report

Paul Whitfield
Paul Whitfield
Reply to  Philodemus
4 years ago

You mean to call for them to apologize for the harm caused by their apologizing for doing harm? Thinking of it performatively, I find your exhortation confusing, Philodemus. You disagree with them, perhaps, and are publicly shaming them, or something? I mean, it almost reads as parody, as you even express a preference for racism over the effects of their judgment in denouncing exactly what you demand they not do: maintain the integrity of apologizing for doing harm. You must disagree about the paper, for this to mean anything, and it only means anything, if you think of it as it is written, because you so disagree. Only way I can figure it, Philodemus. Apologizing for apologizng is a form of disavowal.Report

Zeno
Zeno
Reply to  Paul Whitfield
4 years ago

I’m mystified by your confusion, Paul. Philodemus’ complaint is quite straightforward: he/she thinks that the associate editors caused serious and unmerited harm to Prof. Tuvel and by failing in their most recent statement even to acknowledge the harm they caused, let alone to apologize for it, are acting badly. If you disagree, fine – although, in my view, Philodemus is right, their behavior really has been awful – but I don’t see what is supposed to be particularly confusing about Philodemus’ comment.Report

Paul Whitfield
Paul Whitfield
Reply to  Zeno
4 years ago

My mistake, I’m sure, Zeno. I apologize.Report

Hey Nonny Mouse
Hey Nonny Mouse
4 years ago

The associate editors make a good case for their own firing. There is no acknowledgement that it would have been inappropriate to reject the paper for the reasons given.by those calling for the retraction. The impression that many philosophers think that the paper should not have been publisehd for these reasons, suggests that we have a serious problem in philosophy that needs to be addressed. I fear, though, that there is no wish, in some quarters, to listen to objections to orthodoxy.Report

beauvoir's baby
beauvoir's baby
4 years ago

You don’t go about *discussing* “substantial philosophical and methodological issues” in the manner some of the Associate Editors did. They think that their “substantial philosophical and methodological issues” JUSTIFY their approach, but this is just begging the question. They failed to adhere to fundamental norms of scholarly philosophical practice, and they failed to convince enough people that this was warranted, or could ever be warranted.Report

Eric Kaplan
4 years ago

This is quite an opaque statement! If these are the people who retracted the acceptance of Dr. Tuvel’s article I’m glad they’re gone, but I wish they could say what their position is more forthrightly. As it is, it’s a bureaucratese head-scratcher.Report

Linda martín alcoff
Linda martín alcoff
4 years ago

I suggest the commentators read hypatia’s governance documents, as well as the last 30 years of issues.Report

beauvoir's baby
beauvoir's baby
Reply to  Linda martín alcoff
4 years ago

Can you please point me to the part of Hypatia’s governance documents where it says that it is acceptable for Associate Editors to speak in public in their capacity as Associate Editors in order to excoriate authors and their papers which have passed the peer review process and been published, on the basis of other people signing an open letter accusing the author of poor scholarship? I’d like to see it, so I know never to submit work to Hypatia.Report

Paul Whitfield
Paul Whitfield
Reply to  Linda martín alcoff
4 years ago

Excoriate. I mean, it’s just barely not a 10-letter word, but still. I couldn’t imagine describing the apology I read as such. Anyway, just wanted to show some love for Prof. Alcoff! <3Report

D.C.
D.C.
Reply to  Linda martín alcoff
4 years ago

First page of governance documents:

“The Associate Editors have four primary responsibilities: to search for and appoint Hypatia Editor(s); to
advise the Editor(s) on matters of editorial policy; to assist the Editors(s) in recruiting and reviewing
submissions to the journal; and to recruit and elect new members of the Board of Associate Editors”

I don’t see “bully” or “arrogantly try to rewrite published papers” in there.

I also suspect that reading 30 years of Hypatia would reveal a lack of papers that were retracted because the associate editors thought those papers didn’t cite the right people.Report

XQ
XQ
4 years ago

I would note that most of the public discussions concerning this issue have taken place among men. I would also note that the blog Feminist Philosophers has not reported on this issue. With regard to the latter this suggests either that this matter is NOT “news feminist philosophers can use” OR that something else is going on. Utilizing a principle of charity concerning what might be going on, I would recommend people read Kristie Dotson’s essay “Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing” in Hypatia Volume 26, Issue 2 Spring 2011 Pages 236–257. (N.B. I mean this sincerely to those who really care to understand what might be going on, although I fear it will just lead those who feel welcome to discuss this matter publicly to speculate about what the title of Dotson’s essay may or may not mean, rather than actually reading and seriously thinking about the article. Trying to be charitable myself, I really hope that I am completely wrong in this fear.)Report

XQ
XQ

Allow me to clarify: I meant that Feminist Philosopher blog has *not* posted anything regarding the recent actions of the Editors and non-profit Board, which is being discussed here on this thread. That absence (in light of the lively conversation going on here) should be registered. If I am wrong, however, and there has been conversation on FPblog about the July events, I am happy to be pointed to that discussion. Thanks.Report

Paul Prescott
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

I’m not confident your concern is warranted in this case (assuming I’m understanding your concern correctly). First, FP has weighed in (as noted above). But more importantly, one can be sympathetic to the issues the associate editors raised concerning Tuvel’s paper, and at the same time object to their conduct as associate editors. For example, that’s pretty much my take on the matter!Report

XQ
XQ
Reply to  Paul Prescott
4 years ago

Allow me to clarify again, my question is: why aren’t the July events “news feminist philosophers can use” and yet they appear to be news Daily Nous readers can use (as evidenced by the discussion here)? You don’t find that curious?Report

Paul Prescott
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

Yes. I do find it curious. I’m currently chalking it up to (perhaps understandable) political expediency?Report

XQ
XQ
Reply to  Paul Prescott
4 years ago

And I am offering Dotson’s article for consideration of an alternate explanation.Report

Paul Prescott
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

I understand. It’s a valuable article. And I hope it doesn’t apply in this case, although I’m open to your concern that it might.Report

beauvoir's baby
beauvoir's baby
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

One explanation for a lack of public commentary from well-known feminist philosophers on this particular turn of events (if it’s true that there is one) is that feminist philosophers are worried about wading into the controversy for reasons related to personal-professional relationships. Why do you think I am using a pseudonym? Enough damage has been done to individuals and to the field. Let’s hope Hypatia can restore its good name, and that the AE’s come to understand the nature of their professional misconduct, perhaps through more empathetic one-to-one discussions and personal reflection.Report

D.C.
D.C.
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

Since when are the people who decide what goes up on the main page of FP the ultimate arbiters of whether something is of interest to feminist philosophers?Report

Paul Whitfield
Paul Whitfield
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

*from over among the men discussing their many opinions* “Workin’ hard or hardly workin’, eh, XQ?” 😀Report

Kirk Alder Malone
Kirk Alder Malone
Reply to  XQ
4 years ago

XQ you need to do more than cite this article; you need to explain its present relevance. Is the reason that feministphilosophers haven’t commented is that they are not regarded as knowers, or is it due to our testimonial incompetence due to pernicious ignorance. Neither claim is plausible. Moreover, both charges unsupported and directed at academic colleagues is, well, uncollegial. The only reason your post seems to conform to feministphilosophers “Be nice” rule, is because you hid your unsupported charges in a citation.Report

asst professor
asst professor
4 years ago

Perhaps those over at feministphilosophers realize what the associate editorial board apparently does not, that the best thing for feminist philosophy is to let this whole thing blow over and for Hypatia to hit the “reset” button with a set of new editors/associate editors. This seems reasonable no matter what one thinks of the original article and whether it should have been published. It’s been a lot of bad publicity for feminism, and drawing it out further will only make things worse for both Hypatia and feminist philosophy.Report

Hey Nonny Mouse
Hey Nonny Mouse
Reply to  asst professor
4 years ago

The incident seems to have exposed some serious and fundamental disagreements over what are and are not appropriate grounds to reject a philosophy paper. Not addressing it and discussing it is not a good option.Report

Erik H
Erik H
4 years ago

This is what the AAs should have written:

“Hypatia’s internal dispute and the publicity surrounding Tuvel’s article have risked damage to Hypatia and to the field of feminist philosophy in general. Although we disagree with many perspectives which have been raised, in the interests of furthering the broader goals of Hypatia and feminist philosophy, we have elected to resign.”

The fact that they wrote what they did is, in my view, sufficient evidence that they should properly have been fired.Report

just sad about it
just sad about it
4 years ago

Given the seemingly odd back and forth between the Directors, Editor, and AEs, I wonder if there is a more complicated issue/friction at Hypatia, perhaps disagreement that has existed over an extended period of time, pre-dating the Tuvel article. If so, it is likely that we the public are only seeing snippets of larger and long-standing conversations and disagreement. Given this, we are probably not particularly well situated to try to explain nor fairly evaluate the most recent posts from the Directors, Editors, and AEs. As with most inter-organizational conflicts, I would further guess that no one involved who has acted wholly good nor wholly bad. These kinds of situations tend not to bring out the best in us. With all this in mind, I wonder if we can approach the issue with epistemic humility and charitability. Maybe everyone is just trying to do what they think is the best thing (which we all fall short of sometimes) in a pretty crummy situation. I hope that Hypatia is able to recover eventually, although I suspect that will be a long and painful process.Report

D.C.
D.C.
4 years ago

“We would like to emphasize that our letter neither called for retraction nor impugned any individual actions on the part of the journal’s editors. Instead, our letter clearly stated that it is the journal’s review process, not a particular, individual execution of that process, that requires review.”

That seems dishonest to me.Report

Hey Nonny Mouse
Hey Nonny Mouse
Reply to  D.C.
4 years ago

That they think the article should not have been published for the reasons given bothers me much more than that they didn’t respect the review process. I’d like to know how often articles are getting rejected for such reasons.Report

Sikander
Sikander
4 years ago

This is an overreaction IMO. The associate editors should not have written that apology, but I don’t think they should be fired for it. Too much unnecessary drama and conflict.Report