This blog mostly focuses on IR, but this story has implications for all doing social science, as the accuser at the center of the conversation asserts quite clearly.    So, I am posting the latest and most thorough account of how this played out thus far here.

There are many questions to ask, but the one asked directly in the piece is: how does one deal with flawed work?  Attacking the quality of research is one thing–that is what lit reviews are all about–but the integrity of scholars?  As the piece suggests, that is tricky business indeed.

This is not the end of the story by any means, but I think it is a bit clearer now.

your thoughts?