Peer Review

[_team friendly]

So I've been on both the RFM board and the FAIR board trying to get to the bottom of the issue of whether or not FARMS publications are peer reviewed. Those on RFM don't seem to believe that they are (or that their peer review practices do not actually qualify as peer reviewing), while those on FAIR believe that they are, and in some cases that FARMS' peer review practices are more stringent than others.

I'm beginning to form my own opinion on the issue, but I thought I'd see what people here have to say. Is FARMS peer reviewed? Does it qualify as peer review if only those defending the faith are reviewing the articles?

One more question... one that Dr. Peterson and I are disagreeing on: Is the excuse "No one can peer review LDS articles except for LDS scholars because they are the only ones who are knowledgeable in the field" a good one? It seems to me that those contributing to FARMS make some claims by default that outside scholars could certainly critically examine (i.e. Native American descent, the mere existence of Nephites and Lamanites, Book of Mormon archaeology, etc.).

What do you guys think?

[_Polygamy Porter]

So I've been on both the RFM board and the FAIR board trying to get to the bottom of the issue of whether or not FARMS publications are peer reviewed. Those on RFM don't seem to believe that they are (or that their peer review practices do not actually qualify as peer reviewing), while those on FAIR believe that they are, and in some cases that FARMS' peer review practices are more stringent than others.

I'm beginning to form my own opinion on the issue, but I thought I'd see what people here have to say. Is FARMS peer reviewed? Does it qualify as peer review if only those defending the faith are reviewing the articles?

One more question... one that Dr. Peterson and I are disagreeing on: Is the excuse "No one can peer review LDS articles except for LDS scholars because they are the only ones who are knowledgeable in the field" a good one? It seems to me that those contributing to FARMS make some claims by default that outside scholars could certainly critically examine (i.e. Native American descent, the mere existence of Nephites and Lamanites, Book of Mormon archaeology, etc.).

What do you guys think?

In other words, only magicians should validate magic tricks?

[_Jersey Girl]

Doesn't using peer review from one's own interest group automatically open the door for conflict of interest and/or bias?

Jersey Girl

[_Runtu]

Doesn't using peer review from one's own interest group automatically open the door for conflict of interest and/or bias?

Jersey Girl

What??? FARMS, biased?? I'm SHOCKED, I tell you! Shocked!

[_Bryan Inks]

Based on my understanding of FARMS explanation of their "peer review" scenario. . . I don't believe that they are using the term the way most of society does.

A quick google search for "common practice peer review" gave me several insights into how the vast majority of the authors and scientists view the concept.

For the most part, true peer review happens when your paper is presented to others who have either an extensive familiarity with the subject on hand or are demonstrated experts in the field.

For example of a true peer review: A FARMS author writing about the origins of the Lamanites (Native Americans) would present his paper to several experts in the field of the said origins in a nearly anonymous manner. Be it genetic or otherwise, these experts would then critique the paper based on their knowledge in an effort to eliminate bias and incorrect information. After correction by the original author, it would then be represented for further review.

This process can sometimes happen several times before a paper is published.

As I understand FARMS policy, they have several of the FARMS board and/or members review it to make sure that it won't incriminate too much and then publish.

A bit of radical difference, as I see it.

[_Mister Scratch]

So I've been on both the RFM board and the FAIR board trying to get to the bottom of the issue of whether or not FARMS publications are peer reviewed. Those on RFM don't seem to believe that they are (or that their peer review practices do not actually qualify as peer reviewing), while those on FAIR believe that they are, and in some cases that FARMS' peer review practices are more stringent than others.

I'm beginning to form my own opinion on the issue, but I thought I'd see what people here have to say. Is FARMS peer reviewed? Does it qualify as peer review if only those defending the faith are reviewing the articles?

FARMS *is* peer reviewed, but not in the conventional sense.

One more question... one that Dr. Peterson and I are disagreeing on: Is the excuse "No one can peer review LDS articles except for LDS scholars because they are the only ones who are knowledgeable in the field" a good one?

Absolutely not. Especially those facets of LDS scholarship that touch upon widely studied disciplines. For example, the historicity of the Book of Mormon could easily be passed along to professional historians. Or, as the "Pundits Forum" section on FAIR demonstrates, the DNA issue could be presented to experts on DNA, such as The Dude. It is pretty rare that peer review happens with the sort of specificity described by DCP above. For example, someone may be writing an article dealing with the history of prostitution in early Salt Lake City. The people doing the peer review probably aren't experts on prostitution in early Salt Lake City, per se. They may have expertise in SLC history, or the history of the west, or the history of the sex industry, etc. To claim that all the peer reviewers need be "experts on prostitution in early SLC" is absurd. It isn't really necessary that the peer reviewers be totally acquainted with SLC history, per se, even, since multiple POVs tend to result in better, more well-rounded scholarship. Good peer review usually involves a degree of pluralism that is totally absent from FARMS. Or, to put things more simply, the above claim is complete hogwash.

It seems to me that those contributing to FARMS make some claims by default that outside scholars could certainly critically examine (i.e. Native American descent, the mere existence of Nephites and Lamanites, Book of Mormon archaeology, etc.).

What do you guys think?

I agree with you. The point of FARMS is to promote faith, and not to engage in real, progressive-type scholarship, in my opinion. If they were actually interested in the truth, they would submit their articles to the kind of scrutiny that happens in real peer review. But they are not principally interested in the truth. They are principally interested in re-affirming faith.

[_Jersey Girl]

Doesn't using peer review from one's own interest group automatically open the door for conflict of interest and/or bias?

Jersey Girl

What??? FARMS, biased?? I'm SHOCKED, I tell you! Shocked!

Runtu,

Nowhere in my post did I say that FARMS was biased. I asked a question that warrants a yes or no answer.

Jersey Girl

[_MormonMendacity]

One more question... one that Dr. Peterson and I are disagreeing on: Is the excuse "No one can peer review LDS articles except for LDS scholars because they are the only ones who are knowledgeable in the field" a good one?

Yeah. It sounds like typical FARMS arrogance and like he's saying, "No one is good enough to review our stuff!"

But then again, I don't like the tone of their works.

[_KerryAShirts]

Lessee here................. I write about the Biblical Council of the Gods...........Do I submit it to atheists only so as to get strictly true and objective reviews? I am quite serious. DO I? Would you? Seriously?

I need peer review on a paper I am about to submit to BAR Magazine (Biblical Archaeology Review). Now obviously anyone interested in the Bible as the word of God are not objective. Should I then submit it to a Shakespeare scholar for review? An auto mechanic? Perhaps a United States Senator? How about an Eskimo? There is a purely objective source, but is that the main criteria however? Would an objective eskimo even be *able* to review my research? Would an auto mechanic be able to?

PEER means what? Objective? Are you sure, and can you show this? Peer means "equal," or "a match." It means "associate, mate, fellow." It further means "eqiuvalent, colleague, companion." I see absolutely *nothing* about someone having to be objective in order to give proper PEER review. Do you? My source is J. I. Rodale, "The Synonym Finder," Warner Books, 1978: 864. It has over a million synonyms, one of the most complete, exhaustive, astounding books of its kind.

[_KerryAShirts]

Mormon Mendacity:
Yeah. It sounds like typical FARMS arrogance and like he's saying, "No one is good enough to review our stuff!"

Again, for all to see, since nothing he has *ever* written has said this or implied such in context of his understanding of peer review, I thik your ***opinion*** is marred. Now that is my ***opinion.***