Anton Howes recently raised the question of whether history experiences a replication crisis. The catalyst for this discussion was Jenny Bulstrode’s publication in History & Technology, titled “Black metallurgists and the making of the industrial revolution.” In her paper, Bulstrode argues that British financier turned ironmaster, Henry Cort, had in fact stolen the process of rendering scrap metal into valuable bar iron from 76 Black metallurgists in Jamaica. This claim gained significant attention, with media outlets such as NPR, The Guardian, The World, and New Scientist covering the story.

However, Howes remained skeptical of Bulstrode’s argument and pointed out that the sources she cited did not support her claims. Oliver Jelf also analyzed the sources and concluded that there were major issues with Bulstrode’s narrative. Ian Leslie offered a possible explanation for how Bulstrode arrived at her story, suggesting that her ideological bias may have led her to fabricate causes and effects. Leslie also criticized the peer-review process, questioning how experts could have overlooked the remarkable claims made in the paper.

In contrast, Howes argued that stories and peer-reviewers are not the main problem in this situation. He emphasized the importance of telling constrained stories based on historical evidence. Historians must be trustworthy and accurately represent the sources they cite. Howes proposed making historical sources more accessible, similar to the practices in quantitative social sciences, while also highlighting the need for repercussions for historians who fail to uphold honesty.

Although it remains to be seen if these concerns will have any significant impact on the field of history, Howes hopes that historians will reflect on the replication crisis and take the issue seriously.