Medice, cura te ipsum. A response to Andrzej Zakrzewski

Andrzej Zakrzewski’s article reviews the book The judiciary adopted by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in fiscal cases (1765–1794) by Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk. The article was published in Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 14, issue 4 (2021). It is an unpleasant example of academic misconduct. Due to the doubts it raises, it is necessary to indicate the abuses committed by the reviewer.

Among Zakrzewski’s numerous remarks, his charge of insufficient use of the literature available on the subject stands out. However, the majority of issues raised by the reviewer either do not relate to things found in the book, or the references found there are irrelevant. The next objection relates to the language used in the work. The reviewer’s arguments result from misunderstanding of the assumptions elucidated in the work.

Polemics with the reviewer are in many cases impossible, because they often fail to justify criticisms with substantiable arguments, or they lack rational bases because of being ad personam. Criticism also applies to what is not in the book, because the reviewer does not focus on the content of the work, but refers to other topics that he would like to read about. Bearing all this in mind, one cannot consider Zakrzewski’s text be substantive and conforming to reasonable standards of academic criticism.

Andrzej Zakrzewski’s article reviews the book The judiciary adopted by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in fiscal cases (1765–1794) by Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk. The article was published in Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 14, issue 4 (2021). It is an unpleasant example of academic misconduct. Due to the doubts it raises, it is necessary to indicate the abuses committed by the reviewer.

Among Zakrzewski’s numerous remarks, his charge of insufficient use of the literature available on the subject stands out. However, the majority of issues raised by the reviewer either do not relate to things found in the book, or the references found there are irrelevant. The next objection relates to the language used in the work. The reviewer’s arguments result from misunderstanding of the assumptions elucidated in the work.

Polemics with the reviewer are in many cases impossible, because they often fail to justify criticisms with substantiable arguments, or they lack rational bases because of being ad personam. Criticism also applies to what is not in the book, because the reviewer does not focus on the content of the work, but refers to other topics that he would like to read about. Bearing all this in mind, one cannot consider Zakrzewski’s text be substantive and conforming to reasonable standards of academic criticism.