Research Foci in the History of Science in Past Islamicate Societies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a fine summary treatment by a scholar who has been steeped in the subject matter for many years.  Her experience and point of view are strong, and important.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this is a solid survey of the state of the field of the Islamic history of science(s). I think that the organization and division of the article generally makes sense. However, there were three points that rather jumped out at me and disrupted my reading experience:

(1) I would strongly encourage the author to review the journal's formatting instructions for the bibliographical references. The current citation system forces the reader to either jump back and forth between the bibliography and the body of the text for clarification as to which authors and studies were being referred to. Using the journal's citation system and bibliographical format would resolve this issue. It would also make the article much more user-friendly for graduate students and newcomers to the field, who are still trying to learn the historiography.

(2) Likewise, while I think that the overall organization of the article makes sense, if I may be quite honest, the article read as if it had lost its introductory and and concluding sections somewhere along the way. I would encourage the author to consider whether they might fit it into the journal's template. As someone who has published with some of Histories sister journals, I understand that the template does not always feel intuitive to an historian, especially when writing an historiography, but it does actually help structure papers in a ways that are more friendly to readers. For example, a reader might like to know when the field of Islamic history of science(s) first appears or which works are being surveyed. The template's organization forces an author to answer these questions explicitly rather than burying them in the body of the article. 

(3) In "4. Historiographical Challenges", I found the author's discussion in lines 434-458 to be rather off-putting and unprofessional, especially this line: "I find it particularly troublesome that the generations who built the field in the 20th century and my own generation are by now summarily, as well as individually accused of Eurocentrism, racism, scientism, orientalism or other -isms."

For the record, yes, I get the problems with 1001 Inventions (i.e. the substitution of old anti-Muslim orientalist narratives with new pro-Muslim narratives that are equally orientalist and ignore actual scholarship on Islamic history of sciences). The fight to have scholarly voices recognized and represented in popular presentations of Islamic history is a very real. But that is not what comes across in the sentence quoted above. Rather, what I take away from these lines is that the author is upset that the younger scholars are not adequately respecting him and his generation. This impression does credit neither to the author nor to the scholars and works he is critiquing.

In place of what is currently in this section, I would encourage the author do the following:

(a) Talk about the lack of representation of current academic research on the history of the Islamic sciences represented in lay-popular venues. Focus here on 1001 Inventions as a case study of this. Note, the problem here is not simply that currents scholars are being accused of orientalism, but that their work is being ignored altogether in favor of pure fantasy.

(b) Talk (in a separate paragraph) about the struggles to decolonize the field and the tension between recovering/redeeming the Islamic history of sciences from several centuries of abuse and neglect by the European powers and acknowledging the ways that the Islamic history of sciences is different from the European history. This, unlike the representation issue in the popular sphere, is a struggle of individual professional scholars as they conduct their research and debate among themselves.

In both cases, make the conversation about the content of the works being critiqued and not about the authors.  

Author Response

1) I did not write about Islamic History of Science. Such a thing does not exist. I wrote about trends in this history of science in Islamicate societies and their relations to neighboring fields.

2) I thought I followed the prescriptions for the bibliographical references. I was told I did not need to link them. I had and have no time to follow the prescriptions of the template. I have too many other obligations.

3) I am sorry when the reviewer did not recognize the introduction. S/he is right – there are no conclusions. I have no intention to write conclusions, because this is not a research paper.

4) I regret that the reviewer is put off by my statements. But s/he is wrong in her/his assumption that they are directed against 1001 Inventions. They are directed as clearly said against colleagues in the larger field of history of science and knowledge in Islamicate societies. They produce evaluations of my senior colleagues and colleagues of my own generation etc. that are hostile, full of ideological biases and self-serving. My description of the state of affairs is very polite and does not say most what could even should be said about the severe shortcomings of the claims made by members of those younger generations. But I have no interest in a full-blown war. I merely wanted to point out that there are serious problems and what their main issues are. If the reviewer cannot accept such limited frankness s/he should perhaps first familiarize her/himself with the situation by reading the mentioned titles.

I have no intention to follow the suggestions made by the reviewer. I am not interested in ideologically grounded debates. I am interested in serious academic research.