Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_Mister Scratch]

What?? Why were they "identified" to you? That is highly unusual for peer review. Or didn't you know that?

Peer reviewing does not operate like a machine. There are two levels of peer review. The first is typically blind. The second one, by the time it is done, the author figures out who it is.

You are screwing up big-time. You didn't say you "figured it out," Bob. You said they were "identified" to you. Would you care to elaborate?

How can you "observe that first hand" if FARMS Review uses normative blind peer review?

I can only attest to my experience. I also have been a peer reviewer on one other journal and the authors knew my identity.

Wow, you are really scrambling.

Sure. And in the case of FARMS Review, this "stable" is a "cabal" of Church "yes-men." Really, it seems transparently obvious that the reviewers are selected primarily for their sympathy to apologetics, rather than their expertise.

Untrue for articles requiring technical expertise. Perhaps true for articles which really don't require much peer-reviewing at all.

And your evidence for this is what?
[/quote]

First-hand. Unlike you, I am a published author; I edit journals; I have been a peer-reviewer. So, my experience is limited to what I have seen and done, but admittedly, my journal experience is limited: Journal of Corporations Law (did not publish it; rejected); Los Angeles Lawyer (board of editors, published author, and peer reviewer); BYU Law Review (board of editors, reviewer, twice published author), Journal of Western History (manuscript went through first level of blind peer reviewing and was rejected) and of course FARMS Review (published twice). But that really is, I admit, very limited.[/quote]

In other words: you don't have any actual evidence concerning FARMS's peer review. (Aside from your strange comment above that your reviewers were "identified" to you.)

[_rcrocket]

You are screwing up big-time. You didn't say you "figured it out," Bob. You said they were "identified" to you. Would you care to elaborate?

Same concept.

How can you "observe that first hand" if FARMS Review uses normative blind peer review?

I can only attest to my experience. I also have been a peer reviewer on one other journal and the authors knew my identity.

Wow, you are really scrambling.

Just the truth.

In other words: you don't have any actual evidence concerning FARMS's peer review. (Aside from your strange comment above that your reviewers were "identified" to you.)

I guess that if you discount the first-hand experience I have had in going through the review process TWICE and also knowing generally how it is done by reason of my experience on other journals (I'd say, hundreds of hours), then I guess you must be right.

[_Mister Scratch]

And how did/do you know that he submitted the MS blind, without first having contacted the Ed(s)?

He had a fully completed manuscript before contacting the editor for the first time, so to me the distinction is without a difference.

The distinction is less important from an author's point of view. It matters far more in terms of transparency, purpose, and seriousness vis-a-vis the journal itself. I mean, what are they hiding?

[_Trevor]

The distinction is less important from an author's point of view. It matters far more in terms of transparency, purpose, and seriousness vis-a-vis the journal itself. I mean, what are they hiding?

Widespread apathy among church members?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Would you care to be more specific, LoaP? And by the way: we've kind of gotten away from the original point, which was your suggestion that Coe would be inappropriate as a peer reviewer for an article on Book of Mormon archaeology / anthropology. You say that he is "unfamiliar" with Book of Mormon geography, as per Sorenson, but how does this affect his expertise in archaeology and anthropology?

I don't believe Coe is poor in archaeology[sic] or anthropology; I believe he does not understand or account for the actual information within the Book of Mormon itself. Would I care to be more specific? Nope. I've pointed you to the sources I've read. You're welcome to do the same.

I said that FARMS has weathered criticism from Bushman, and that Bushman is an example of a less biased and less bellicose LDS scholar as compared with, say, Bill Hamblin.

Then we are agreed that Bushman also has praise for FARMS in addition to criticism. As pointed out before, I feel to do the same.

What? They are concealing their guidelines because they are busy? Even if that were the case, it does not change the fact that the process essentially involves "commissioning" every single article.

I didn't refer to concealing anything. I suggested that one reason they prefer a call before a blind manuscript is to save time. This is only a guess on my part.

Well, feel free to have faith in your suspicions, LoaP. It doesn't change the fact that you don't know one way or the other. Sorry that this galls you, my friend.

Consider me ungalled.

Hmm. I asked a very simple question, but for whatever reason, you didn't answer it.

Actually I answered very specifically. I'll say it again: "I actually am not sure if a blind manuscript has been submitted and published without there ever being a conversation beforehand."

And no---I don't know that I ever agreed that "all" academic journals "do not take blind submissions." I've merely maintained that not taking them is very, very unusual, and that I am not aware of a single journal (aside from FARMS Review) that operates this way.

How many journals are you familiar with?

Oh? Then perhaps you can provide an example of a journal (other than FARMS Review) which does not accept straight-up MS submissions? I'll be patiently waiting for you to enlighten me.

I can't, but I am unfamiliar with submission guidelines for most academic journals. Incidentally, I don't think a quick phone call to the editor is too much to ask. I think it's rather simple to do, actually. And if it were such a problem, and was keeping important folks from publishing in the Review, perhaps we could hear from those people who are being screened, see what they have to offer, and discover more about what can and cannot be printed in the FR.

As for other FARMS publications I know that the JBMS accepts blind submissions.

No, it's not irrelevant, since it demonstrates that there is not an "open call" for scholars to submit their very best work on this subject.

Question: What's the difference between simply submitting a blind manuscript and making a phone call before submitting a blind manuscript?
Answer: a phone call.

Further, since the "submission guidelines" are so atypical, there is good reason to think that other facets of FARMS Review are "atypical" as well.

Sure. We can also see what these facets are, and discuss them. Or judge the published articles by their actual content. Or not.

And what are the others?

Generally your posting style and online persona.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Which articles published in FARMS Review were "unsolicited"? Please be specific. (Oh, and by the way: by "unsolicited," I mean that the full MSS were submitted blind to the Ed. in Chief, just like what happens at typical academic journals.)

One of mine; as well as another in the same issue by another author to whom I had been talking. He had been working up his manuscript for months and I urged him to submit it to FARMS which he did. And I know this fellow; not exactly uber orthodox you seem to expect. Often critical.

We're getting sick of your repeated lies. We know you're just making this up. Mods.

Wait, he's lying because he said his article was unsolicited and submitted blindly?

[_Mister Scratch]

Which article, Bob? Further, did you just mail in the MS? I find your claim to be rather dubious, because if it were true, then how would you know the formatting guidelines?

The Denton article.

Did you in any way contact DCP or another editor prior to submitting it?

"Formatting guidelines." What a joke. When I was an editor on two different journals I don't any of the authors whose works I reviewed paid any attention to formatting guidelines.

And, for my Denton article I didn't pay any attention to formatting guidelines except that I adhered, as in the case of my other academic papers, to the Chicago Style Manual. The FARMS editors then cleaned up the mess.

None of this changes the basic facts of the "submission guidelines," which is that they are secret, and that you must first contact one of the eds. in order to move onto the next stage. All of this is highly irregular.

[_rcrocket]

And how did/do you know that he submitted the MS blind, without first having contacted the Ed(s)?

He had a fully completed manuscript before contacting the editor for the first time, so to me the distinction is without a difference.

The distinction is less important from an author's point of view. It matters far more in terms of transparency, purpose, and seriousness vis-a-vis the journal itself. I mean, what are they hiding?

I guess they must be hiding a whole hell of a lot. Or, an alternative world-view here is that you simply have no clue of what it means to be an academic and publish in an academic journal.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Just curious: do you disagree with that one example? If you were harboring a Jew way back when would you lie to save said Jew or not?

Godwin's law

So are you going to answer the question? It is pretty straight-forward. It is a simple question now, it is not related to any Godwin's law violations, it is a simple question. Either you'd lie or you wouldn't.

[_rcrocket]

None of this changes the basic facts of the "submission guidelines," which is that they are secret, and that you must first contact one of the eds. in order to move onto the next stage. All of this is highly irregular.

"Irregular" implies some sort of "normative" (as you overuse the word) standard. Where might I find that normative standard for journals?

Or, perhaps, why don't you pick any one of the English speaking universities in the world which is owned by a religious organization. Just name one, and then I'll look through the journals and maybe we can discuss how they are different than FARMS Review's policies?