February 24, 2021
Dear Eric,
Thank you for the offer to publish with IRLE. As we previously stated, we have decided toforgo that option. Instead, we have published our findings as an open letter ​here​ and ​here​.
We still have some clarifying questions regarding the investigation process at IRLE, andhow the board intends to address our ​case for retraction on the grounds of academic misconduct.​ We
ask these questions to establish how seriously the board and the publisher take into consideration thehistorically inaccurate claims and faulty sources we found embedded in the article. At the same time,
we think these questions might also be helpful to members of the editorial board as they consider
how to respond to the issues we have raised.
We have added these questions to our open letter in the publicly shared document. No
matter what you decide about retraction, in the interest of pursuing an open dialogue about issues ofacademic integrity and academic freedom, we invite you to publish your responses on our website.
1. We understand the ultimate decision to retract will lie with the publisher. Under whatcircumstances would the board recommend to the publisher to retract?
2. What steps would be taken if the author does not provide satisfactory responses to theclaims we lay out in our fact-checking document, or if the author flatly denies thecharges without providing any further support or citation? More specifically, we would
like the board to respond to our claims as follows:a. As we state, the author has not consulted a single signed contract or even asample contract that was known to have been used in Korea. While this does notprove that no such contract ever existed in Korea, it does prove the author has
not produced any such documents. If the author merely states that for reasons of
his own he believes there were such contracts in Korea (without producing any
signed contract or sample contract that sources specifically attribute as having
been used in Korea), and they were widely, even universally, employed, fromthe board’s perspective, would such assertion on the author’s part be sufficient
to avoid retraction?
b. Also, if it is proved that the author used selective quoting and the fuller context
we provided in our document effectively establishes opposite views, would thisuse of sources be considered a “falsification” of data that would warrant theboard to recommend a retraction? In particular, we point out the cases ofmischaracterized testimony in the two individual cases presented in the article -that of Osaki (Yamazaki, ​Sandakan hachiban sh​ōkan​) and of Mun Ok-ju.
Would the board decide that, since this is not a history journal, selective quotingand tendentious interpretation of the sources would not qualify as grounds forretraction?

c. Beyond these major issues, what is the board’s position regarding the manyother incorrect and missing citations? If the author refuses to correct thesecitations, would the board recommend a retraction?
3. Finally, if the board considers the allegations and the matters of discrepancies raised to
be serious but is not equipped to come to a conclusion on its own, would the board
recommend hiring an independent expert on Japanese history to assess the differences,or would the board simply defer to the author’s position?
Best wishes,
Amy Stanley
Professor of History
Northwestern University
Hannah Shepherd
Junior Research Fellow in Japanese and Korean History
University of Cambridge
Sayaka Chatani
Assistant Professor of History
National University of Singapore
David Ambaras
Professor of History
North Carolina State University
Chelsea Szendi Schieder
Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics
Aoyama Gakuin University