For those that are curious, the editor-in-chief's response is here (1 page):

(If it feels TL:DR, it is basically saying the ball is in our court, for some reason. It is now up to all scholars who do follow rigorous guidelines of presenting arguments and supportive evidence to now try to argue against a guy who has no real case. And that blind-peer-review did happen.) I do wish my articles were blind peer-reviewed that lightly, lol!

Looks like the case is closed, although still quite mysterious and I'm not sure academics are going to fall for the editor passing the buck. We do have more important articles to tackle than debating Gilley.

Dear Trilla,

Thank you very much for your reply and explanation!I I appreciate your insight and I will definitely sign the petition.

Haha, yeah that's one theory, :) but a huge mistake since it's a top journal. This isn't their first summer term/ vacation rodeo, maybe would've expected it from a new one. Someone is still getting in trouble for it, at least the two + main editor that would've been consulted for blind peer-review. Until it's resolved publicly by the editors, it's a mystery.

Yes, I think researchers were expecting an engagement with what the discourses of colonialism, maybe a realistic comparison of what colonialism represents. They suspended their hesitation and read the article through, though, and such (alternative) facts like colonialism abolishing slavery, and proposing to recolonise the coast of Africa and the Middle East by a vague 'Western will' caused some concern. This is besides misusing the well-known literary critic of colonialism, China Achebe as being a colonial cheerleader. This is why it's extremely puzzling on how it got pushed through a review process.

Lol, don't worry, it's not an attitude. I think you are misunderstanding the issue. I'm not blatantly smearing the journal, as I've written out before. I love this journal, read it with relish every month, which is why, among other political scientists, I'm stunned at a piece of work that, in the words of one professor, 'can be torn apart by undergrads'.

You can certainly engage in a debate on the merit of the article, but that does require an understanding of why just the abstract alone has shocked scholars. This would be similar if I jumped into an article the sciences, I would expect to know certain things for that discipline in order to judge a piece of work. Without a certain understanding of the theories that this article is suggesting, and the aim of the journal, it is just lamenting over censorship without considering the importance of rigorous scholarship. Please just relax, I'm not treating you like a schoolchild, I'm just confused over your vigorous defence. However, that is not what this post is about, so I'd rather not just bounce an argument around. I wish you a good day. :)

Well, my intention was to share an issue with postgraduates that professors and established, international academics are rightfully concerned about. Critiquing is not silencing. Choosing not to apply for a journal that allows for bad research is not silencing, it is our right and power as academics. When the only purpose of an academic journal is to offer well-developed scholarship that contributes to the production of knowledge, then, yet, a discussion of the actual article and possible lack of oversight is absolutely necessary. I have discussed this article with other postgrads and professors, so yes, I did expect a similiar reaction forum that considered a serious issue in academia.

However, this topic may best be suited for a person in a similar disciple to both myself and the journal, which is why I stated, "I'm putting this out here in case any humanities/social science students missed this article that caused a flurry on Twitter." Many of the posts on this forum are discipline specific (with a heavy emphasis on science, which is fine).

Getting back to the topic at hand, if anyone is curious about the article, just PM me for a share!

Wow, PM, not sure why you are so defensive. This is an issue that concerns our industry. Yes, this article is being exposed, not as nonsense, but as a dangerous editorial slip/possibly paid off. I don't have to provide an analysis, the abstract is written simply enough for anyone with a critical background to understand. Good god, look at that last sentence. Did you not read the beginning of the post, where the reason I noticed it was from the ripples in Twitter by political science and social science academics who study colonialism and international relations?

The reason for the shock is that it passed a peer-reviewed journal, where, apart from a badly written argument and lack of sources, carries a problematic assumption that Said (one of the easily cited scholars on Orientalism) tackled 30 years ago. Would something like that be acceptable in any discipline? It's not about political correctness or academic freedom of thought (especially if the thought is not well founded). Scholars right now are writing to the journal, demanding answers. The department in the author's university is also getting very bad press over this, and it can open up doors into other concerns. It's one of the bigger mistakes to happen in a while, and nothing exciting ever happens in academic journals. Third World Quarterly was on my list for an upcoming article, but now I will consider other journals for submissions if the editorial board doesn't respond, and I know I'm not the only one.

Epiphany, yes, I think that is why there is so much confusion on this article being published, there is concern that an academic journal may be more interested in being 'known' through a new medium such as twitter than contributing to scholarship. The 'sinking' will come from people not submitting to the journal, as well as taking articles that pass the peer-review with a grain of salt.

So, I'm putting this out here in case any humanities/social science students missed this article that caused a flurry on Twitter. I thought it was a joke, but it truly may sink this journal (Third World Quarterly) , considering they give out the 'Edward Said' award and Chomsky, among other prolific academics, are on the editorial board.


Title: The Case for Colonialism by Bruce Gilley
Abstract

For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch.

It also had an altimetric of over 900 in just a few hours (due to Twitter) and over 600 views. :| Damn.
It was originally published as an article, but it seems the journal now changed it to 'viewpoint'..as if it will save it.

(I can't seem to choose the 'off topic' category for some reason)

Ah, i actually was not aware a practice based proposal was so different. Learning something new every day! :) I found this resource page, hope it helps if you haven't seen it yet during your search:

I think the usual format is giving the research question, and proving (through a lit review and timescale) of how you will develop the process to that research and answer the question. State the question, then propose the plan (which could include the project). You'll need to prove that your research question is unique by glossing over what has been established in that field, and what hasn't been established or thought of before. Several universities give examples of passable research proposals (google it), across both sides of the pond :).

It was a critical discourse analysis paper for an academic journal. I didn't have a supervisor, and I basically expanded and went into deeper analysis from a short paper that I handed in and got good marks on in an MA course. I only used my supervisor for my MA dissertation, but haven't asked him to review any article drafts. To find which journal I wanted, I read through some of the top ones in the discipline and chose the ones that matched the 'journal aims' on their websites. I then pitched it, with some rejects but I did get very good constructive criticism that really helped make it into a great article. It is blind peer review, so any rejections or criticism won't really embarrass anyone.

Yes, it actually looks good to have an article in review or published while you are applying for PhD applications. I was in social sciences/arts and wrote an article during the tail-end of the MA, and the potential PhD supervisors said it was a strong consideration in the applications. You also should try to present a couple of papers at some conferences alongside your MA, as that looks great on a CV for later. It's a lot of hard work, but well worth it if you enjoy the challenge of academic writing. (I'm not sure what a postgraduate journal is, you should be able to pitch the article to regular blind peer-reviewed academic journals, I got two rejects before getting it accepted.)

Hello,
I'll be a new postgrad this autumn in U of Nottingham. I need some advice re: private accommodation. My partner and I are currently living in HK, which is crazy expensive, so we thought we'd pop over to Nottingham early in mid-July and look around to secure a flat and live there until the course commences. Is it possible to find a flat within two weeks in the UK, and are landlords okay with non-UK residents (no local credit score)? We're US citizens, so we have that score. And we'd be on a tourist visa for a bit until the Tier 4 visa kicks in. If anyone has any experience with this, much appreciate the advice! Thanks in advance!

(*sorry, I couldn't select the off topic category for some reason, so it's going in phd advice/support)

Yes, exactly what ToL said. I think you may not be ready for a PhD yet, as it requires a proposal that highlights a 'gap' in current research, and how you will contribute. So, first step is to read up...a lot, so you know the context you will be working in. That will take some time. In the meantime, look up some potential supervisors in the institution that you want to study in, and see how your proposal can match their research interests. Good luck!

What is your specific note-taking method? After trying several ways, (highlighting, copy/paste quotes in doc), I've found out that the Cornell note-taking method works best, and I have Scrivener for compiling the notes and holding annotated PDFs, and an offline binder.

For me, I read the article once, highlight some bits, then write a 200-250 word summary w/keywords (not much jargon or direct quotes, just for me) to begin the notes. After that, I paraphrase and thematise the highlighted bits into Cornell notes (always referencing the page number and keeping direct quotes for some parts,) in Scrivener. Since Cornell notes is about paraphrasing in your own words, it somehow cements the knowledge in my brain a bit better than just copy & paste Organise with labels, and print the notes into a binder for offline reference. I'm a fast reader, and I sometimes skip over non-relevant sections, but it probably takes only about 1 hour/article, once you get into the groove. It's amazing for lit reviews, as it works well with constellating the knowledge rather than 'he said/she said'.

Learning Cornell + putting cash on Scrivener is quite a bit of an investment, but it is really helpful for notes and drafting.