In March 1997 a distinguished historian, Professor Joel Williamson of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, wrote a self-reflective essay in the Journal of American History (JAH) in which he examined why he, as a born and bred Southerner, could not see and in fact denied and obviated the existence of lynching in American history. The JAH, with an exemplary psychodynamic introduction by editor David Thelen, persuaded six referees, all distinguished scholars, four white and two African American, to waive their strict confidentiality and publish their reviews. The author published the paper as submitted, with no revisions. This unique view of the workings of the academic publication review process reveals a sharp clash in evaluation between the referees based on race and stance toward the self-reflective intent of the author.

1997 年 3 月，著名的历史学家、北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校的乔尔·威廉姆森教授在《美国历史杂志》（JAH）上写了一篇自我反思的文章，其中他研究了为什么他作为一个出生和长大的南方人，可以没有看到，实际上否认并消除了美国历史上私刑的存在。该JAH由编辑大卫·塞伦 (David Thelen) 以模范的心理动力学介绍说服了六名审稿人，他们都是杰出的学者，四名白人和两名非裔美国人，放弃严格保密并发表他们的评论。作者发表了提交的论文，没有修改。这种对学术出版物审查过程运作的独特观点揭示了基于种族和对作者自我反思意图的立场的审稿人之间的评估冲突。