Talk:The Journal of Peasant Studies

Untitled
There is a rumor that an editorial coup took place at this journal in 2008. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.100.202 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some inkling of what has gone at this journal and at the Journal_of_Agrarian_Change can be gleaned from here: Talk:Journal_of_Agrarian_Change and (2009) 'Editorial note', Journal of Peasant Studies, 36: 1, 1 — 3. I am not sure how to include this in this article if at all. My understanding (which is limited and based on very little info is. THere was a "big change" in 2000 with lots of board leaving to start a new journal (Journal_of_Agrarian_Change) but in 2008 the JPS's new editors returned the JPS to the views of those who left for the new journal.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

A warning to readers: the high figures for Page Ratings are probably the work of someone connected with this journal under the post-2008 editorial regime. The high ratings for completeness, objectivity and trustworthiness overlook the troubled history of the Journal of Peasant Studies, none of which is referenced in the entry for this journal. The account presented cannot be regarded as complete, objective and trustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.204.237 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear 86.162.204.237, I am not sure what you mean by "high figures for Page Ratings". Are these connected with the impact factor? I am sure the article is not complete - but what is your objection to what is here. Do you have any suggested modifications? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Page Ratings have nothing to do with Impact Factor. They appear in the form of a drop-down menu entitled “Rate This Page”, containing four entries (Trustworthy, Objective, Complete, Well-written). The reader of the Wickipedia article is invited to assess it in these terms, ticking each box by rating the entry on a scale from 1 to 5. Maybe you don’t have a Page Ratings menu, since apparently this doesn’t appear on all computers. As to things missing or wrong with the Wikipedia article, these concern an inadvertent bias (not your fault) as a result of basing it on what is on the current JPS website. The account there reflects the views of only two of the journal editors, Byers and Bernstein. This is true of what is contained in reference 2 of the Wikipedia article, for example, which is based on a history of the journal they wrote for JOAC. No mention is made in reference 2 of the Wikipedia article of an alternative history, written by the third editor, Brass, and published in the JPS at around the same time. It ought to be included: it is entitled “The Journal of Peasant Studies: The Third Decade (1993-2004)”, JPS 32/1 (January 2005), pages 153-179. The subsequent reference in the Wikipedia article mentions only the first Index (when Byers and Bernstein were still editors), covering volumes 1-20 (1973-93), missing out a mention of a second Index (compiled by Brass), covering the content of volumes 21 to 31 (1993-2004). It, too, was published in that same issue (JPS 32/1, January 2005, pages 180-241). These omissions give the impression that the main accomplishments were those effected by the first two editors, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.204.237 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another reply to 86.162.204.237: Ah - I don't have that thing on my machine - Sorry! but I think I have seen it elsewhere.
 * As for the content - there has been some related discussion on Talk:Journal of Agrarian Change. I think it would perhaps be nice to some story expressing both (or all three, or more) sides of the, what I think might have been a rather fierce, debate. Writing such a thing would be tricky though. And I think I don't know enough to write it and those who do know might have tendencies to support one side rather than any other. If you have suggestions you should feel free to raise them here. And of course feel free to edit the article directly. Indeed I would welcome more content on this. Adding useful/interesting things so long as they are sourced is fine even if one has a potential conflict of interest. However it is best to declare any such conflict of interest and to least try to avoid pushing a particular point of view. For now I have added:  “The Journal of Peasant Studies: The Third Decade (1993-2004)”, JPS 32/1 (January 2005), pages 153-179.  Hope that is OK and is what is wanted and the article is now less biased. I might have been a bit biased as I was taught long ago, and briefly, by Shanin and have read some of Bernstein's stuff but have no particular axe to grind here. (I can't link to the newly referenced article at the moment as it is behind a pay wall.) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
 * PS I have found the page rating thing now - I think I switched it off as an "annoyance" - and then forgot about! (Msrasnw (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

2008 Editorial Change
Thanks for referencing the alternative history in the Wikipedia article. As is evident from the large spike in Page Viewer Statistics (which have gone up from at most one or two views daily, to 27 and 21 on the last two days), others are taking an interest in this discussion, including I’m sure those connected to the post-2008 editorial regime. There must be some nervousness among their ranks about the full story of what happened in 2008 becoming known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.153.51 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2011
 * Do you have any useful information about what happened in 2008 and do you think we have enough stuff for a well sourced section discussing the Journal's changes in editorial policy? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC))
 * From here: The JPS Editorial Collective (2009) Editorial note Journal of Peasant Studies, Volume 36, Issue 3, 2009 we have a list of the JPS's own sources "JPS has a long and rich history. Its stature as one of the most important journals in the field is due in large part to the intellectual creativity and dedication of its past editors. Readers interested in learning about the contributions of various editors can refer to the editorial note by Tom Brass in JPS 35(4) and the reply by Henry Bernstein and Terence Byres in JPS 36(2). Further details about the JPS 1990–2008 period can be found in the article by Tom Brass in 2005 that appeared in JPS 32(1), ‘The Journal of Peasant Studies: The Third Decade’– in addition to the articles by Bernstein and Byres that were identified in their earlier reply." (Msrasnw (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What that piece by the post-2008 Editorial (JPS 36/3) doesn’t mention is that a reply from Brass to the Byers & Bernstein letter (JPS 36/2) was not published. His reply, pointing out their inaccuracies (with regard to the division of editorial labor), was censored. Members of the 2000-08 editorial board protested at this refusal to publish his reply, but to no avail. As to what happened in 2008, I can only repeat what I’ve heard. A long campaign against Brass as editor (a contributor boycott, accompanied by the claim that JOAC was a continuation of the now-defunct JPS) resulted in his being sacked by the new publisher, and replaced with a close friend of the previous editors. Most of Brass’s own editorial board resigned in protest, only to be informed that they, too, had been sacked. Asked to show solidarity with those dismissed, members of the new editorial board apparently ignored this appeal. Bad as all this is, it is – so I’m told – only the tip of a very large iceberg.
 * I think this is interesting and it would be nice to include something about the editorial disputes. But for something like this we would definitely need sources that would pass as WP reliable sources and I would guess these would be hard to find if they exist. I think having anything at all on this dispute might be difficult if only one side is published in reliable sources. Perhaps on balance it might be best to leave the controversy out. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

I disagree, since to leave the Wikipedia article as it currently stands is to accept an account that is itself partial, and thus inaccurate. In such circumstances Wikipedia articles become no more than advertisements, repeating as the sole truth what a product wishes to be seen as being. The proposition that nothing can be said about a dispute unless there is published evidence for this is dubious, for at least three reasons. First, it would mean that historiography was impossible, since one could not declare the need for an alternative interpretation for which no evidence was as yet available (e.g., the hidden history of intelligence organizations). Second, it means that published evidence which already exists has to be accepted as true, which is also obviously wrong. And third, Wikipedia articles on other journals (e.g., New Left Review) do in fact refer to the existence of editorial disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.153.51 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Msrasnw why close down a discussion when it gets interesting? An iceberg - what else is hidden? why did the post 2008 people refuse to show solidariti? Makes em sound politically disengaged, not what one expects of a marxist journal (it is still a marxist journal, isnt it??)? so many questions, so few answers. - Aninterestedobserver, 15.31, 18 aug 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.110.45 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear 109.154.110.45, I think I don't have enough knowledge on this issue and although the controversy is covered a bit in the published sources, I'll perhaps just reiterated my view that it would probably be difficult for me to write an unbiased or balanced section on the controversy. I don't agree with the implication of views expressed above by 81.159.153.51 that the article is an advertisement. Also I do think it wise to base controversial additions on reliable sources. There are other venues I think - blogs and the like - where one can express personal opinions without the need for reliable sources. Wikipedia is not, I think,  really the place for original research, pushing of points of view or exposees and the like. Also those with a direct connection - likely to have some conflict of interest - should try to edit very carefully.
 * At the moment the article seems OK and neutral (if a bit boring) and I am not sure that this discussion is likely to help improve the article. I think those heavily involved in publishing on political issues (such as those editing the JPS) are, in my limited experience, particular prone to this kind of thing and this is exactly what I would expect to find in political driven publications. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for your intervention, 109.154.110.45, and in reply to your first question, the JPS is no longer a Marxist journal. Its post-2008 orientation favors a populist approach, combining pro-farmer and food-first concerns. The earlier, Marxist, focus was on class differences within the peasantry, and how these affected the process of transition, both historical and actual. The survival of peasant economy was questioned, and socialism as an objective was always in there somewhere. Now the focus seems to be mainly on better deals within capitalism for rural producers, regardless of whether these consist of smallholders or large farmers, and peasant economy is regarded as a positive good. As to your second question, the iceberg is large and not very nice. Again, I can only repeat what I’ve heard, which is that in the 1980s and 1990s themed issues, once the editing was complete, had their original editor removed and replaced in the published version with the name of another editor. Although I agree that this is no more than rumor, it is interesting what the account referred to above by Brass (JPS 32/1, January 2005) has to say: “Regrettably, and unaccountably, names were occasionally also left off the list of editors for particular special issues that appeared in the 1973-2004 period.” (page 155). Mentioned as missing from the list of special issue editors – those who did the work, and should have been credited as such, but whose names didn't appear on the published version as an editor – are Frank Perlin and Brass himself. Regarding the answer by Msrasnw, if, as you admit, you don’t have sufficient knowledge, why then are you writing the Wikipedia article on this journal in the first place, and defending it as though it were your own private property? As it stands, information contained in the article is taken verbatim from the journal website, and thus cannot be other than an advertisement, since for fairly obvious reasons what one finds there makes no mention of the history being discussed here. That is every bit as much a controversial decision (to exclude crucial portions of journal history) as anything said in this section (to include crucial portions of journal history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.138.12 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)