Back in 2012, the Danish religious studies scholar Markus Altena Davidsen of the University of Leiden published a review article in the Method and Theory in the Study of Religion journal titled "What is Wrong with Pagan Studies ?". In this, he attacked the theoretical and methodological perspectives prevalent within the field of Pagan studies, with which I am involved, via a critique of a recent anthology on the subject, Murphy Pizza and James R. Lewis' Handbook of Contemporary Paganism (Brill, 2009).
Although I felt that Davidsen made a few pertinent observations, it was immediately clear to me that there were a great many problems with his paper, which largely stemmed from the fact that he had had no real experience with Pagan studies scholarship, instead relying on a very limited command of the literature on the subject. As such, I responded to him with a paper titled "In Defense of Pagan Studies", which was published in The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies several months later.
Now, Melissa Harrington of the University of Cumbria has responded to Davidsen in her own (unpublished) paper, which she has uploaded onto her academia.edu account (here). Harrington is one of those Pagan studies scholars who was most heavily criticised by Davidsen, and her reply is certainly well worth a read. I personally feel that in parts her response is perhaps a little more vitriolic than necessary, but then again, she clearly feels wronged by Davidsen, highlighting where he has continuously misrepresented her position and asserting that his paper was more libel than critique. She goes so far as to suggest that he makes "an unwarranted character assassination aimed to discredit my academic integrity." I'm not convinced that that was his intention, but I am nevertheless glad that she is making her opinion heard on the issue. It of course reminds me somewhat of the situation back in June 2012 when an anonymous Pagan blogger began making bizarre personal attacks against the archaeologist and Pagan studies scholar Caroline Jane Tully. Critiquing the work of other scholars is of course a core part of academic discourse, and that can include some criticism of any undisclosed bias that may affect their views, but when you start making personal attacks against the scholars themselves then that crosses a line and should rightfully be condemned by the academic community and society at large.