Mister Scratch wrote:moksha wrote:Mister Scratch wrote: Even if that were the case, it does not change the fact that the process essentially involves "commissioning" every single article.
Okay Scratch, if you already know what you want, what would you have to gain from a traditional submission process? A field of directionless scholars could produce who knows what about items that may not be quotable to shore up the castle walls, no?
Lol. Yes, you've got it exactly right, Moksha (as usual). FARMS Review (and its submission process) represent a scholarly close-mindedness. They know what they want (or perhaps more accurately, what the *don't* want), and have rigged all of their processes to reflect this fact. That said, I continue to protest the false claim that FARMS Review is in any way a serious, "academic" publication. It is, above all, an attack journal, and an apologetic organ.
Agreed. My best guess is that it is mostly composed of a Mormon/BYU cabal, paid by the LDS church, to produce on the surface what would seem to be an academic journal to the uninformed. It's simply a big op ed dressed up in an academic facade so as to present a scholarly face to their apologetics to the membership, who are mostly uninterested, but pacified by a "legitimate" academic journal addressing these difficult issues. Beyond that, the "review process" is most likely an ad hoc thing where if they accept an outside-the-cabal submission, a few of them take a look at it, edit it to one degree or another, get a consensus before publishing it, and then post it.
In other words, the reason why they don't present a formalized submissions and peer-review process is because there most likely isn't one. They half-ass it because, well, what else are they supposed to do?