Third World Quarterly

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Third World Quarterly is an academic journal whose name has long implied a quiet schedule of four issues a year. In reality, it publishes monthly. That gap between appearance and fact turns out to be fitting, because in September 2017 the journal became the center of one of the most heated debates in modern academic publishing. A single article tore through its editorial board, drew tens of thousands of signatories online, and forced a public reckoning over what peer review actually means. The questions the journal's 2017 controversy raised are ones the academy is still working through: who decides what is publishable, what counts as a flawed review process, and when does a published argument become too dangerous to leave on the page?

• 2. The Journal and Its Structure

  ›

  The journal is managed by Global South Ltd and published by Taylor and Francis. Shahid Qadir holds two roles simultaneously: he is the founding editor and chair of the editorial board, and he is also one of two directors of Global South Ltd. That dual position would become relevant when critics of the journal's 2017 editorial decisions pointed to inaccurate statements from the editor-in-chief as part of their reason for resigning. By 2021, the journal carried an impact factor of 2.225, a measure that places it within the recognized tier of peer-reviewed scholarship. Its international editorial board, drawn from scholars across many countries, numbered 34 members before the events of September 2017 changed that count.

• 3. The Colonialism Article

  ›

  Bruce Gilley, a political scientist, wrote the piece that broke the journal open. The article was titled "The Case for Colonialism," and its publication in September 2017 drew an immediate and fierce response. Portia Roelofs and Max Gallien of the London School of Economics described it as a travesty, calling it the academic equivalent of a Trump tweet and clickbait with footnotes. Oxford theologian Nigel Biggar found himself drawn into the controversy after he publicly defended Gilley's article, and his defense drew its own criticism. The reaction was not confined to opinion pieces and social media: it moved directly into the governance structures of the journal itself.

• 4. The Resignation and Petition

  ›

  On the 19th of September 2017, a significant portion of the journal's editorial board submitted resignations in a coordinated protest. The signatories numbered 15 out of 34 international board members. Their resignation letter cited two specific grievances: a flawed peer review process for the colonialism submission, and inaccurate statements from Shahid Qadir. Simultaneously, a petition calling for the article's retraction appeared on Change.org and gathered more than 10,000 supporters. That scale of public response was unusual for a dispute rooted in academic journal governance, which normally draws attention only within specialist communities.

• 5. Chomsky's Dissent

  ›

  Not every board member who stayed or every critic who weighed in called for removal of the article. Noam Chomsky, himself a board member, opposed retraction. His reasoning was direct: rebuttal, he said, offers a great opportunity for education, not only in this case. That position placed him at odds with the majority of resigning colleagues and with the tens of thousands who signed the petition, while also reflecting a longstanding argument that open debate, however uncomfortable, is the proper mechanism for correcting bad scholarship. His dissent ensured the controversy was not simply a story of unified academic protest but a genuine argument about how journals and institutions should respond when they publish work that draws this kind of condemnation.