Odpowiedź na artykuł recenzyjny Tomasza Siewierskiego
Response to the review article by Tomasz Siewierski

Summary/Abstract: Peer reviews are an essential element of academic discourse. It is in this spirit that I receive the critical remarks of Tomasz Siewierski, although I cannot agree with the most serious allegations he has made. Firstly, it is not true that I disregarded his editorial review - I simply never received it. Secondly, I do not share the view that the interview (recorded and faithfully quoted) I conducted with Professor Andrzej Paczkowski required authorization. This reflects a misunderstanding of the difference between the craft of a journalist or ghostwriter and the methodology of a historian editing a provoked source. Even more misguided is the opinion that publishing the interview was pointless - particularly given that as much as 40% of the figures appearing in it do not appear in the work of Patryk Pleskot, which, according to Siewierski, had exhausted the subject. Many of the technical comments raised by the reviewer - as I have demonstrated - are unfounded. Nevertheless, I appreciate the suggestions that contributed to improving the text. What remains troubling, however, is the tone in which the author addressed my work - clearly falling short of the standards of scholarly debate that one should expect in a reputable academic journal.

• Details
• Contents