When I brought this problem to the attention of the journal's editors back in March, they insisted Slobodian's piece had undergone rigorous peer review and dismissed my concern.
Not so. Peer review flagged the same concern. The journal's editors ignored it. pic.twitter.com/QdKYFbIpxr
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) August 23, 2021
I'm now told by the journal's publisher that this is simply "scholarly disagreement" in their eyes rather than misrepresentation of evidence achieved by Slobodian's editing of the Mises source material to alter its meaning.
And yes, the example above is one of many in the paper.
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) August 23, 2021
h/t Glenn