09/28/2021
September 28, 2021
To the Western Historical Quarterly Community:
Over the last few weeks, we’ve had an important conversation about ethics, professional practice, and giving credit for ideas stemming from the publication of Dr. William S. Kiser’s article “The Persistence of Unfree Labor in the American Southwest" in the August 2021 issue of this journal. After looking closely into the issues raised, the Western Historical Quarterly stands firmly behind Dr. Kiser's article and his ethics in producing that scholarship. At the same time, because professional ethics and attribution are so important, we have also decided to describe what happened and to take this opportunity to think more critically about how the journal can support more equitable and inclusive forms of acknowledgment. Although this began with a particular article and a particular conference, we have received permission from the scholars involved to share their names and details in this narrative to take a broader look at the issue.
On Friday, September 3, 2021, the WHQ Editorial Board and some WHA officers received an emailed letter concerning Dr. Kiser’s August 2021, WHQ article. The letter, from Dr. Jessica Pliley and Dr. John Mckiernan-González, suggested that Dr. Kiser’s title and some of the ideas for the essay evolved at a conference held at Texas State University San Marcos in late October of 2019. That claim became public when the letter was briefly posted on Facebook. Using words like “plagiarism” and “unethical” got our attention. Even if the goal was to raise concerns about academia and its publishing venues’ poor track record in citing the work of women and scholars of color, plagiarism is a serious charge, and one that reflects on both the author and the journal. Certainly, there is a murky area in acknowledging ideas gleaned from work presented in conference papers, commentary on panels, blogs, and the like that too often remains unrecognized and uncited. Resolving that problem is a shared responsibility.
In this particular case, however, Dr. Kiser had submitted a full manuscript to the WHQ in September 2019 -- before he attended the conference held in October 2019. The title of the conference, “Chasing Slavery: The Persistence of Forced Labor in the Southwest,” did share three words with Dr. Kiser’s eventual WHQ article title, “The Persistence of Unfree Labor in the American Southwest.” The manuscript went through two rounds of peer review and the article evolved with each review. (Dr. Kiser and the WHQ could point to all the drafts and comments of reviewers that live forever in our online submission system). And the reviewers made suggestions about what the article’s final title should be. Dr. Kiser’s essay begins with a discussion of why he chose “unfree labor” as the term he believed best described the situation over time as opposed to "forced labor," which, he argued, implied something different.
With that timeline established, the WHQ and its Board of Editors went through a lengthy process to decide how best to respond. Drs. Pliley and Mckiernan-González, the scholars who hosted the conference, saw the timeline and acknowledged the originality of Dr. Kiser’s work, but remained concerned about “a gray area of attribution” in how scholars give credit for ideas. In this case, Dr. Kiser’s article has footnotes recognizing the publications of many women scholars and scholars of color, and it thanks a colleague who informed him of a recent newspaper article that he wouldn’t have found on his own. But he did not cite this conference.
There are no clear rules about when to cite the scholarly work from such conference papers, blogs, Facebook postings, etc. Perhaps there should be. We all make calculations in final drafts about how ideas got clarified and who to cite. But, as numerous studies have shown, the work of women and people of color is either diminished or left out entirely. As we discussed this with those involved via email, phone, and text, we discovered many Editorial Board members have, over the course of their careers, had their work (or that of their students) left uncited or, worse, stolen.
We learned a lot in the last few weeks about what to think about this situation and how to consider a difficult situation together. We’re unanimous in our support of Dr. Kiser’s work and his ethics. But perhaps the way we do things needs some tinkering. Best practices could include reminding authors to think about where they shared work and who gave them feedback, in whatever format. Maybe, the WHQ could make that first footnote that appears on the bottom of the first page of every article be the place scholars might recognize work that isn’t necessarily in books or articles. Or, as we review articles, we could give guidance about building thorough citations throughout an article's footnotes that include emerging work. We look forward to hearing any and all suggestions from our readers about establishing best practices as we consider our work together in the future.
Sincerely,
Anne Hyde, Editor, and the Editorial Board of the Western Historical Quarterly
LINK TO THE STATEMENT BELOW:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KZKOodz7rSa0840KFELAzDdwy7ztp7KP/view?usp=sharing
LINK TO DR. KISER'S ARTICLE:
https://academic.oup.com/whq/article/52/3/259/6330553?login=true
