rcrocket wrote:You might remember that Scratch has argued in the past that FARMS review should not hand-pick its peer reviewers, and should publish alternative points of view.
I keep asking him to name a single academic journal that does not hand-pick its reviewers; he hasn't. The invitation is still open. Maybe there's a journal out there. Somehow I don't think Scratch reads academic journals nor knows what they might be.
That's not what I said. I said that FROB cherry-picks its reviews. Whereas the typical academic journal is looking to increase knowledge and to produce vital scholarship, FARMS Review uses a stacked-deck peer reviews process in order to ensure full orthodoxy. Of course DCP "hand-picks" his reviewers: they are all a bunch of Church "yes men" who will never, ever go against the Brethren, or the Church of Latter-day Mopologetics.
Cool. What academic journal does not "cherry-pick" its reviewers? Having worked as an editor, it is my observation that the board members or the editor in chief has his/her go-to-folks to review things. How else is it done at other academic journals in sociology, economics or religion? Can you name one?
Plus, I really don't consider FARMS Review an academic journal per se. It is a platform for good writers interested in saying defensive things about the Church. So, I really think it unnecessary to have the kind of peer reviewing you think necessary. Your beef is really with the fundamental premise of the Review, and not with the way it is edited.
rcrocket wrote:You might remember that Scratch has argued in the past that FARMS review should not hand-pick its peer reviewers, and should publish alternative points of view.
I keep asking him to name a single academic journal that does not hand-pick its reviewers; he hasn't. The invitation is still open. Maybe there's a journal out there. Somehow I don't think Scratch reads academic journals nor knows what they might be.
That's not what I said. I said that FROB cherry-picks its reviews. Whereas the typical academic journal is looking to increase knowledge and to produce vital scholarship, FARMS Review uses a stacked-deck peer reviews process in order to ensure full orthodoxy. Of course DCP "hand-picks" his reviewers: they are all a bunch of Church "yes men" who will never, ever go against the Brethren, or the Church of Latter-day Mopologetics.
Cool. What academic journal does not "cherry-pick" its reviewers? Having worked as an editor, it is my observation that the board members or the editor in chief has his/her go-to-folks to review things.
Right, and you choose them on the basis of their expertise, *not* on the basis of whether or not they will simply supply you with the rubber stamp of orthodoxy.
Plus, I really don't consider FARMS Review an academic journal per se.
Neither do I. I'm glad we agree.
It is a platform for good writers interested in saying defensive things about the Church. So, I really think it unnecessary to have the kind of peer reviewing you think necessary. Your beef is really with the fundamental premise of the Review, and not with the way it is edited.
My beef is with the fact that apologists insist that it is an "academic" journal, and that it is peer reviewed in a normative way. If they want to say, "FROB isn't actually academic. It is really just an apologetic organ, and isn't peer reviewed in the usual sense of that term," then I'll lay off.