FARMS Review "Written by Invitation"

[_rcrocket]

FARMS Review bears very, very little resemblance to any academic journal known to me.

So, answer the questions I posed above.

1. Is it your contention that academic journals never, or rarely, publish "by invitation only?"

2. Is it your contention that no serious academic journal refuses to publish alternative views to the essential mission of the journal?


I think my continued hammering of these points is to emphasize the fact that the Review is designed to be a mouthpiece for persons of all stripes, be they academics or not, to publish a singular point of view (actually "re-view") of previously-published material -- so long as the pieces meet standards of writing and thought. You may dislike the fact that non-credentialed people submit pieces. You may dislike the fact that it does not admit opposing points of view (well, it does, but within the framework of assumption that the Church is true). It is what it is. It has some good stuff and some bad stuff. I think the reviews of Palmer's work were terrible (the work in which one of my own pieces appeared), but I thought Palmer's work was terrible without looking at any reviews. I think the review of Compton's earlier book was wonderful; it helped me understand what Compton's points were or how they were weak.

[_rcrocket]

I've always assumed that they have this warning up to scare off all of the quacks and weirdos. I am pretty sure if you are an active LDS with a reputable PhD and you send them something that isn't totally crazy, they will publish it.

And yet, no other academic journal in existence (as far as I know) feels the need to withhold its submission guidelines as a means of fending off "quacks and weirdos."

True, but that is probably because it doesn't really have any. Like stated above, it is just looking for articles that sound intelligent and tow the party line.

Really, what is wrong with that? I don't expect the University of Chicago's economics journals doing anything but supporting the party line of free markets. I'd be interested in pointing any that argue against the free market system.

Living in a pluralistic society implies alternate voices, not alternate voices self-muted with self-loathing critics. One can carp all they want about how RFM does not permit critics, but critics would mute its voice.

[_Chap]

FARMS Review bears very, very little resemblance to any academic journal known to me.

So, answer the questions I posed above.

1. Is it your contention that academic journals never, or rarely, publish "by invitation only?"

2. Is it your contention that no serious academic journal refuses to publish alternative views to the essential mission of the journal?.

See above. Sorry if your questions did not produce answers that enabled you move on to whatever you were already planning to say next. But I agree it is often a good ploy to reply to an answer damaging to your case by simply repeating your question in a louder, more insistent voice, in the hope that listeners who did not understand the answer will assume your opponent was dodging the question. Probably won't work here, though.

I think my continued hammering of these points is to emphasize the fact that the Review is designed to be a mouthpiece for persons of all stripes, be they academics or not, to publish a singular point of view (actually "re-view") of previously-published material -- so long as the pieces meet standards of writing and thought.

Uh-huh .... and ? Do go on.

You may dislike the fact that non-credentialed people submit pieces.

Nope. Physics Letters A does not demand any credentials apart from writing good science. Referees evaluating papers for good journals typically have no idea who the writer is, and are certainly not told anything about his 'credentials'.

You may dislike the fact that it does not admit opposing points of view (well, it does, but within the framework of assumption that the Church is true).

(a) That sentence is a little gem of equivocation, isn't it? "opposing points of view, within the framework of assumption that the Church is true".
(b) I do not "dislike" this fact. I merely note that this feature of FARMS Review makes it radically different from any normal academic journal.

It is what it is.

Yes. How right you are.

It has some good stuff and some bad stuff. I think the reviews of Palmer's work were terrible (the work in which one of my own pieces appeared), but I thought Palmer's work was terrible without looking at any reviews. I think the review of Compton's earlier book was wonderful; it helped me understand what Compton's points were or how they were weak.

It might make FARMS look just a little more (but not much more) like a real academic journal if someone published some articles in it attacking other articles that have already been published - looks like you might be well equipped to try. Or has that already happened?

[_Mister Scratch]

Riddle me this as well Mr. Scratch:

What if an unsolicited Mormon author were to give a positive or neutral review to something that FARMS wanted a hit piece on?

I'm not sure that I follow you here, Moksha.... Let me try to re-word your statement a bit, to see if I get what you're saying:

Suppose there is some LDS intellectual who had just finished reading, say, No Man Knows My History. This LDS intellectual thought that Brodie did an excellent job, and now, this same intellectual would like to write a review of NMKMH and submit it to FARMS.

Is that the scenario you're laying out, Mok?

Would that not create an awkward situation that would leave the unsolicited Mormon author dazzed and confused and possibly even having their testimony rattled? Could this not be better handled by soliciting those who are known to produce the right stuff?

I guess I see what you're saying. But, then again, this means that FARMS Review can hardly be placed in the same league as more open, more serious academic journals.

The main point is this: A reputable academic journal wants the best scholarship it can get its hands on, bar-none. It doesn't care who this stuff comes from; it doesn't care what the over-arching POV or ideology is. It simply cares about getting the best scholarshop. Hence, every academic journal features a "Submissions Guidelines" page on its website, so that people researching in the field will know how to "get the word out," as it were.

The "Submissions Guidelines" for FARMS Review doesn't exist. The implication is thus that FARMS is uninterested in the *best* scholarship. Rather, they are just interested in pro-apologist bunk.

[_Mister Scratch]

And yet, no other academic journal in existence (as far as I know) feels the need to withhold its submission guidelines as a means of fending off "quacks and weirdos."

True, but that is probably because it doesn't really have any. Like stated above, it is just looking for articles that sound intelligent and tow the party line.

Really, what is wrong with that? I don't expect the University of Chicago's economics journals doing anything but supporting the party line of free markets. I'd be interested in pointing any that argue against the free market system.

This seems rather beside the point. At least one can submit "contra" articles to the Journal of Law & Economics, since they have a link enabling people to do so.

Living in a pluralistic society implies alternate voices, not alternate voices self-muted with self-loathing critics. One can carp all they want about how RFM does not permit critics, but critics would mute its voice.

The difference is that RfM states from the outset that it is for "recovery," and that it doesn't permit proselytizing and TBM lecturing. FARMS Review posits itself as a legit scholarly journal, when in reality, they are pre-censoring top-notch scholarship. If FARMS Review were a legitimate academic journal, and if it were interested in the very best Book of Mormon and Mormon-related scholarship, then you would expect it to include material damaging to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or articles debunking Book of Mormon theories about the Lamanites, etc.---top-of-the-line work being done in pertinent fields. But, all of this stuff is verboten. If anyone's able to figure out what the submission process is, I'm sure that DCP just feeds these proposals and papers into the shredder.

[_Chap]

I've always assumed that they have this warning up to scare off all of the quacks and weirdos. I am pretty sure if you are an active LDS with a reputable PhD and you send them something that isn't totally crazy, they will publish it.

And yet, no other academic journal in existence (as far as I know) feels the need to withhold its submission guidelines as a means of fending off "quacks and weirdos."

True, but that is probably because it doesn't really have any. Like stated above, it is just looking for articles that sound intelligent and tow the party line.

Really, what is wrong with that? I don't expect the University of Chicago's economics journals doing anything but supporting the party line of free markets. I'd be interested in pointing any that argue against the free market system.

Living in a pluralistic society implies alternate voices, not alternate voices self-muted with self-loathing critics. One can carp all they want about how RFM does not permit critics, but critics would mute its voice.

I have spent some time looking at abstracts of articles referring to markets in recent issues of journals relating to economics published by the University of Chicago. See:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/

I can't see any articles that seems to be either advocating 'the free market system' or arguing against it. They are not that kind of journal. In so far as markets are mentioned, they are objects for study - one asks how a market reacts to so and so, how markets operate under certain types of outside conditions, and so on. I think rcrockett must be thinking about a different kind of journal.

Nobody on RfM has ever claimed that it has anything in common with an academic journal. Why mention it in this context? We are talking about FARMS Review, which is frequently claimed to resemble an academic journal. I do not think rcrockett has made out a case for that.

Incidentally - why is it so important to rcrockett to claim that FARMS Review is an academic journal? Can't you just call it a sort of house magazine for members of an informal club of LDS apologists? Nothing wrong with that in itself, surely?

[_rcrocket]

You just cannot concede anything, can you? I make a point about a UoC journal and you cast it aside by some irrelevant distinction? What a laugh.

FARMS Review posits itself as a legit scholarly journal, when in reality, they are pre-censoring top-notch scholarship. If FARMS Review were a legitimate academic journal, and if it were interested in the very best Book of Mormon and Mormon-related scholarship, then you would expect it to include material damaging to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or articles debunking Book of Mormon theories about the Lamanites, etc.---top-of-the-line work being done in pertinent fields.

We live in a pluralistic society, even in academia. That means some strong voices from academia, and some muted with self-published criticism. Some journals publish alternate voices, some don't. FARMS Review doesn't. A whole raft of other journals do not, as well.

Do you want me to republish the list I gave you months ago, which you ignored? We can discuss each one?

[_Mister Scratch]

Incidentally - why is it so important to rcrockett to claim that FARMS Review is an academic journal? Can't you just call it a sort of house magazine for members of an informal club of LDS apologists? Nothing wrong with that in itself, surely?

There wouldn't be anything wrong with that, but LDS apologists desperately need to lend an air of credibility to their whole enterprise. Dallin Oaks once reportedly admitted that FARMS exits in order to prevent the Brethren from being "outflanked" by Church critics. Thus, FARMS needs to seem credible, so that bishops and SPs can tell struggling members, "See? Look! Really smart academic-types have fully addressed these topics in a serious, scholarly, peer-reviewed setting!" But, it's all bunk-o. The dishonesty and sophistry at the heart of it all is really disappointing, to say the least.

[_Chap]

You just cannot concede anything, can you? I make a point about a UoC journal and you cast it aside by some irrelevant distinction? What a laugh.

What University of Chicago journal are you talking about, please? Are you under the mistaken impression that there is only one UoC journal that deals with economics?

[_cinepro]

Are you sure DCP has defended the FARMS Review as an academic journal? The real scholarly journal of FARMS is the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. That would be the one they would try to defend as an "academic journal", I would think.