The case of Jason Arday revealed that, in some academic fields, in some journals and with some publishers, worthless writing can pass peer review and reach publication. This is a predictable risk when politics, EDI and activism take precedence over scholarly standards, and rigorous criticism is itself treated as suspect (see examples in the linked article). Some of us have recognised this problem for years and have been dismayed by how low standards in parts of academia have sunk. I have personally encountered attempts to silence legitimate criticism to protect the vanity and egos of colleagues and friends. Such circles become mutual protection systems for academic narcissism: members affirm one another’s importance, shield one another from scrutiny and treat criticism as betrayal. Scholarly standards pay the price. We should feel equally free to criticise the work of our own colleagues: collegiality should not require us to suspend scholarly judgement. I hope this affair encourages more people to subject such work to proper scrutiny and recognise that publication, whatever the journal or publisher, is no guarantee of scholarly quality. See also my forthcoming piece in @timeshighered on Friday on self-interested demands from academics for immunity from external scrutiny. ianpace.substack.com/p/the-a…