Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Bob---

Let me refresh your memory. I asked you how it was that you "know" that FARMS Review calls in expert peer reviewers to deal with certain articles. You first claimed that you "know" this based on your own experience, to which I responded, "How did you know the identity of your peer reviewers?" You went on to state that they were "identified" to you, which you later revised, stating that you "figured out" who they were. Now, did you "figure out" their identities with absolute certainty? Did you ask them? Or were you told? Or are you just guessing?

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Go for it, Bob. Show me another journal that conceals its submission process. I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

[_rcrocket]

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.

Bob---

Let me refresh your memory. I asked you how it was that you "know" that FARMS Review calls in expert peer reviewers to deal with certain articles. You first claimed that you "know" this based on your own experience, to which I responded, "How did you know the identity of your peer reviewers?" You went on to state that they were "identified" to you, which you later revised, stating that you "figured out" who they were. Now, did you "figure out" their identities with absolute certainty? Did you ask them? Or were you told? Or are you just guessing?

This is like talking on a blog about Chevy engines with a person who has never been a mechanic and knows nothing of mechanics, but can write well. Good on the rhetoric, way short on substance.

[_rcrocket]

Go for it, Bob. Show me another journal that conceals its submission process. I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

Name the institution. (I'll wager you are so far from academia that you can't.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

She knows all about it. She just can't tell you why or how.

[_rcrocket]

How many journals are you familiar with?

None. I've played this game with her before. She's strong on rhetoric, almost absent on substance. She must either work in a field completely unreliant upon academic literature or has never had a post-grad experience of any sort.

You won't get Mr. Scratch to respond to challenges for analogous external references like this one. She'll just drill down on what you have said in the past and then find ways to eternally split hairs. This thread abounds with hair-splitting just to see if I'll lose my cool. Was the manuscript submitted with an advance call or without? Was the reviewer's identity told you or did you figure it out? As if these distinctions make any difference at all. A sophist, but nothing more.

[_Mister Scratch]

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 looked at those sources, LoaP, and I've got to say, I just don't see how your argument has any merit. Would you care to elaborate, or are you cashing in your chips?

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.

No, not really. I think Bushman's feelings towards the bulk of what turns up in FARMS Review are rather lukewarm. He seems far more positive about *other* areas of LDS scholarship, but with respect to FARMS Review, his attitude seems lukewarm at best.

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.

In other words: you have no real evidence, and the fact that they commission everything remains unchanged.

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?

Enough to know that FARMS Review's "submission process" is highly irregular. C'mon, LoaP. All you need is one contrary example. We all know how much you love coming up with the one example that topples the whole argument. Go for it! What have you got to lose?

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.

It may be simple, but it is also strange, and it suggests that the Powers that Be are finagling with the process. FARMS Review wants to be seen as a respectable, reputable publication, and yet they are unwilling to be transparent about their submission process. I wonder why that is?

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.

Except that the strangeness of this submission process bespeaks to an additional layer of "screening." It suggests that they are trying to ward off anything critical or contrary.

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

And that's how it should be.

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.

And the fact that it goes against typical academic practice. (And the fact that this is a journal which gets attacked frequently for being "unscholarly".) Really, if everything is on the up-and-up, then what have they got to hide?

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.

Yes, that's true, and we can also observe what kinds of articles never seem to make it into FARMS Review, and which kinds of vicious smear pieces are allowed to stand.

And what are the others?

Generally your posting style and online persona.

Which is what? Please be as descriptive as possible.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

How many journals are you familiar with?

None. I've played this game with her before. She's strong on rhetoric, almost absent on substance. She must either work in a field completely unreliant upon academic literature or has never had a post-grad experience of any sort.

You won't get Mr. Scratch to respond to challenges for analogous external references like this one. She'll just drill down on what you have said in the past and then find ways to eternally split hairs. This thread abounds with hair-splitting just to see if I'll lose my cool. Was the manuscript submitted with an advance call or without? Was the reviewer's identity told you or did you figure it out? As if these distinctions make any difference at all. A sophist, but nothing more.

She's pretty expert at shifting the goalposts and then castigating you for changing the subject, as well.

[_Trevor]

She's pretty expert at shifting the goalposts and then castigating you for changing the subject, as well.

If you like, you can both call me a woman too. We should all be so complemented.

[_Mister Scratch]

Go for it, Bob. Show me another journal that conceals its submission process. I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

Name the institution. (I'll wager you are so far from academia that you can't.)

Still waiting, Bob. Come on---just one little ol' journal! Surely, you and LoaP can come up with just one, can't you?

You won't get Mr. Scratch to respond to challenges for analogous external references like this one. She'll just drill down on what you have said in the past and then find ways to eternally split hairs. This thread abounds with hair-splitting just to see if I'll lose my cool. Was the manuscript submitted with an advance call or without? Was the reviewer's identity told you or did you figure it out? As if these distinctions make any difference at all. A sophist, but nothing more.

Let me ask you again: Were your reviewers revealed to you by someone at FARMS? Or did you just "guess" their identities?