Offended scholars demand retraction, redux

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--UPDATED

This time the outrage is aimed at Third World Quarterly.  The objections are dressed up, in part, as objections to the "quality" of the article, which may in fact be low.  But that doesn't matter, of course:  if the editors made a bad decision, they have to live with it.  Readers can lower their opinion of Third World Quarterly, stop submitting there, or ignore the article.  What they have no standing to do is demand retraction.  So far, the editors of the journal are behaving better than the now disgraced former Associate Editors at Hypatia.  I encourage them to ignore the petition.

UPDATE:  Much of the editorial board of Third World Quarterly has resigned in protest.  That is most definitely their right when they believe there has been a failure of the editorial process.

ANOTHER:  Here is the letter of resignation, stating the Board's objections.  (Thanks to Walter Amoko for the pointer.)  I confess I still see no grounds for retraction:  referee reports offer advice to editors, editors are not bound to accept that advice.  The Board members should resign, since they feel the editors made a bad decision, but that does not mean retraction is warranted.