Last December I ran an exclusive about a deeply antisemitic conspiracy article that was published in the academic esharp magazine at Glasgow University. ‘esharp‘ is an ‘international online journal for postgraduate research’ and Glasgow University is very proud of the outlet. The University website even states that all the post-graduate papers are double-blind peer-reviewed.
Having read the paper and researched it thoroughly, I complained that the article was ‘so bad and the errors so numerous, that it would need a book to address them all.’ The work was shoddy, the references did not support the article’s argument, many assertions were academically unsupported – and worst of all – the whole thing was neck-deep in blatant antisemitic conspiracy. The paper basically argued that people like myself (I featured prominently) have been recruited by Israel to lie, smear and spread disinformation. In the eyes of the author, I – and those like me – are enemies of British democracy – 5th columnists. A classic antisemitic trope.
I turned to Glasgow University and asked how on earth this antisemitic diatribe was ever published – worse still, that it had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
The esharp apology
Following their own internal investigation, Glasgow University has recently published a comprehensive apology online. Their statement has been added as an introduction to the original journal – so anyone who tries to access the paper today will first read a statement pointing it out as both promoting antisemitic conspiracy as well as representing a complete failure in academic standards.
“This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data, which promote an unfounded antisemitic theory regarding the State of Israel and its activity in the United Kingdom. We would like to apologise that our editorial procedures did not identify those failures in scholarship” – esharp Editorial Team, Glasgow University May 2021.
It is a devastating statement and a total vindication of my own research. I had claimed that the article was based on biased sources, misrepresented its own reference material and was promoting antisemitic ideology. Those behind the investigation at the University appear to have agreed with me on all three points.
Those promoting the esharp antisemitic paper
Following its original publication in the esharp journal, the antisemitic paper was referenced in academic articles and became available on Google Scholar. It was also used as a reference in Wikipedia. This means that both Google Scholar and Wikipedia are promoting antisemitic conspiracy articles. It should come as no surprise that the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) conference in 2016 was the first place to give Jane Jackman a platform to present her paper. The University of Warwick was home for years to BRISMES, where Nicola Pratt and Teodora Todorova (two toxic Warwick academics) ruled the roost. The paper represents the type of gutter anti-Zionist politics that the organisation – and these academics – seem to adore. We now know that BRISMES platforms antisemitic conspiracy. That’s a fact.
It is an important victory
The apology, which is now on the Glasgow University website – presents evidence of an important victory and I suggest everyone engaged in fighting antisemitism bookmarks the page.
There are several layers to this. Jane Jackman’s (the author) paper represents the ‘David Miller’ school of thought. ‘Spinwatch’ – one of Millers obsessive anti-Zionist outlets – features heavily. Other sources relied upon, include anti-Israel activists such as Ben White and the conspiracy theorist / academic Ilan Pappe. Greg Philo and Mike Berry – two academics from David Miller’s academic family are also referenced. The paper argues what David Miller argues – that Zionist Jews in the UK are akin to 5th columnists and are out to subvert British democracy and stifle criticism of Israel. It is, as the University now states on its website – all one toxic antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Having this fact so firmly endorsed, with the university publicly labelling this paper as ‘promoting an unfounded antisemitic theory’, is a clear win. The fact that this article was actually published, proves that there is a rotten strain in academia. A poison spreading through our universities. With malignant cells in place such as Exeter, SOAS and Warwick – it acts as a cancer – with new academics, freshly dosed with antisemitic ideology, leaving the nests to spread the sickness elsewhere. If this is not true – how was the paper – even after a peer review – ever published?
So this apology from the esharp editorial team at the University of Glasgow is important. Those who have been sharing the article, those who promote the toxic anti-Zionism contained within its pages – are all promoting antisemitism. If anyone argues with this – just point them to the statement on the Glasgow University website. A win is a win.
(anyone who wrote a complaint to the university following my exclusive should pat themselves on the back. This is a clear victory and shows that our efforts are worthwhile.)
Please help to support this research?
This research is hard-hitting and unique – it goes wherever it needs to – and it depends on community support. We are in a real fight – and the results speak for themselves – for seven years I have been creating headlines. I engage in forensic research, much of it undercover, into anti-Jewish hatred, anti-Zionism and the lies they tell about Israel.
This site battles back against those who seek to revise history and I expose antisemitism. If you can, please consider making a donation – your help really does make it all possible.
You can make PayPal donations using the donate button below.
Or you can give regular monthly support via my Patreon page
Every contribution is truly appreciated.
13 thoughts on “Victory – as Glasgow University apologises for publishing antisemitic article”
How was yesterday”s 16th anniversary of the 7/7, July 7th 2005 bombing of London transport by 4 islamofascist jihadis observed?
Location: London, England
Date: 7 July 2005; 16 years ago
Target: Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London
Attack type: Suicide bombings
Weapons: Improvised explosive devices
Deaths: 56 (including the 4 bombers)
– Hasib Hussain
– Mohammad Sidique Khan
– Germaine Lindsay
– Shehzad Tanweer
Motive: Islamic terrorism
I am so pleased. MY father was a holocaust survivor and went on to teach at this university. He died 30 years ago but I emailed the uni, in support of your research, because he would have been so upset and angered by the article and isn’t here to do it.
I had heard from them when I wrote my complaint and I responded and then I heard from them again saying the case was closed and they hoped I was not disappointed with the results of their findings (that there was no problem with the article!?) . So I emailed again. So I am surprised and confused by this victory since they appeared to have made their decision, which was that there was no problem with the article, and yet now they apologise?
As important as this victory is I don’t see any suggestion that they will investigate the inadequate processes and the overy bigotry which led to this article acing its double blind peer reviews, because there seems nothing to prevent the next, similar article from appearing through the same outlet.
Well done, David. You fight clad in the armor of Truth and your work is deeply appreciated.
I have left a note regarding the article on the talk page of the Wikipedia article that refers to it. Unfortunately the page is protected at a level that prevents me editing it directly, but I hope that a more senior editor addresses it.
Looks like Israels bestie Bolsanaro is in a bit of bother
You really can’t be arsed anymore Bellers. Even these vague placeholders seem forced. A decade is a long time for you guys especially as most of you fell by the wayside ages ago.
Oh, and did you figure out which Rothschild address you meant when you were trying to give me a little poke last week?
Yeah but I’m not going to tell you til you figure out how many years there are in a decade
Suit yourself cockle. It’s your poke.
sutiing myself is my strong point
Driving and typing again Bellers. We’ve discussed this. If you go down for killing a kiddie, doing things to yourself will be all you have. Please pull over next time you want a little poke.
Good that you have that. You certainly have no other evident skills or talents that would qualify as “strong” or even “average”.
Mazel Tov, David. So pleased and proud that you prevailed on behalf of our people and in the interest of integrity in academic scholarship. I am more disturbed that reviewers for a refereed journal could allow this to be published given all the biased references and misrepresentations that you found. Keep up the great work. Truly
It will be interesting to see if Google Scholar and Wikipedia acknowledge this correction and take down
Comments are closed.