There are many similar cases. See these discussions on the quality of peer review:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_prepared_are_article_reviewers_to_make_more_gentle_reviews/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_would_you_deal_with_expert_referees_reviewers_that_send_unprofessional_reviews/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_really_think_that_the_referees_of_scientific_journals_are_really_qualified/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_may_be_the_quality_elements_or_criteria_for_an_excellent_review/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_obtain_a_better_peer_reviewing/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_think_we_might_we_improve_peer_review_and_the_quality_of_scientific_publications/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_would_you_improve_the_peer_review_process_Any_ideas_to_make_it_more_robust_and_useful_for_authors/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_you_could_change_something_to_improve_how_the_peer-reviewed_process_is_traditionally_done_what_would_you_change/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where-is-the-problem-at-the-journals-of-peer-review2/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_anyone_have_guidelines_for_how_to_do_a_peer_review_on_a_paper/1

This CFP looks very exciting, especially in the way it highlights the trans-Pacific entanglements of colonial legacies through public art. The emphasis on monuments, performances, and civic rituals as sites of both colonial power and postcolonial reimagination opens up rich comparative perspectives. I find the call particularly valuable for encouraging scholarship that moves beyond national frameworks toward interregional and transimperial connections. It seems like a great opportunity for researchers in art history, cultural studies, and related fields to bring interdisciplinary insights into how colonial afterlives are negotiated in the public sphere.