Houston, We Have a Problem: Enhancing Academic Freedom and Transparency in Publishing Through Post-Publication Debate
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929919889309 |
| Date | 01 August 2021 |
| Published date | 01 August 2021 |
| Author | Kristian Skrede Gleditsch |
| Subject Matter | Symposium: Free Speech and Academic Freedom |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919889309
Political Studies Review
2021, Vol. 19(3) 428 –434
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929919889309
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Houston, We Have a
Problem: Enhancing
Academic Freedom and
Transparency in Publishing
Through Post-Publication
Debate
Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
Abstract
Debates over controversial articles often highlight important issues regarding academic freedom,
transparency, and how to handle disagreements in publishing. I argue that a response outlining
criticism is generally a more productive course of action than calling for retraction. However,
there are a number of constraints that impede meaningful debates, and a problematic divergence
between our common ideals of open research and free debate and the actual practices that we see
in academic publishing, where our current practices often undermine transparency, replication,
and scientific debate. I argue that research can benefit from more explicit recognition of politics
and preferences in how we evaluate research as well greater opportunities for post-publication
debate. The successful initiatives to promote data replicability over the past decade provide useful
lessons for what improved post-publication transparency may look like.
Keywords
academic freedom, transparency, debate
Accepted: 22 October 2019
Introduction
The article “The Case for Colonialism,” originally published in Third World Quarterly
(TWQ) in 2017, generated a controversy that highlights important issues regarding aca-
demic freedom, transparency, and how to handle disagreement in academic publishing.
Some participants in the controversy simply called for the article to be retracted after
publication, on the grounds that the article was offensive and damaging.1 Retraction is
normally an action reserved for articles that contain clear evidence of misconduct, usually
University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Peace Research Institute Oslo, Norway
Corresponding author:
Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK.
Email: ksg@essex.ac.uk
889309PSW0010.1177/1478929919889309Political Studies ReviewGleditsch
research-article2020
Symposia and New Ideas
To continue reading
Request your trial