FARMS Review "Written by Invitation"

[_rcrocket]

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?

Since you sit on academic journals (and I have sat on a professional journal) perhaps you can answer my questions posed to you above?

I don't care one way or the other if FARMS Review is considered an "academic journal." That's like caring whether Mormons are Christian. Who cares? It is what it is. But, there is nothing wrong with a university publishing a journal advocating, without self-loathing criticism, a particular point of view.

[_Mister Scratch]

You just cannot concede anything, can you?

Settle down, Bob. No need to get upset, particularly after you made such boastful assertions about your ability to keep a level head. So far as I can tell, there's not really anything I *can* concede.

I make a point about a UoC journal and you cast it aside by some irrelevant distinction? What a laugh.

You made an insubstantiated point point: i.e., that a UoC journal never publishes anti-free market articles. Where is you evidence for this? Further, *my* point was that the UoC journal at least provides the means of doing so. FARMS doesn't even do that.

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.

Yep. And some which falsely pose as legitimate scholarly journals.

Some journals publish alternate voices, some don't. FARMS Review doesn't.

Boy, you're sure right about that! In fact, FARMS Review doesn't even provide the means to submit alternate voices! DCP was right: the Review truly is sui generis.

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

Sure, Bob. I defy you to show me one from the list that does not openly state its Submission Guidelines. FARMS Review seems to be alone in this.

[_Mister Scratch]

Are you sure DCP has defended the FARMS Review as an academic journal?

In all fairness, he once described it as an "opinion journal." However, he has always maintained that it is "scholarly" in nature. It seems pretty clear that The Good Professor wants it to have that special patina of good, quality scholarship, so that it will seem correct and professional when all these critics get lambasted with ad hominem attacks.

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.

It doesn't matter. The submission guidelines for Journal of Book of Mormon Studies are the same (apparently) as the ones for FARMS Review: namely, they're hidden from view.

[_rcrocket]

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

Sure, Bob. I defy you to show me one from the list that does not openly state its Submission Guidelines. FARMS Review seems to be alone in this.

I don't care a fig about "Submission Guidelines." "Submission Guidelines" do not mean anything in terms of intellectual freedom or lack thereof. The rag I edited, over 100,000 readers, had submission guidelines -- send your manuscript here in Word form and kiss your copyright rights away. That's it.

My list was a list of one-note-Jonny voices -- particular points of view which would not admit any material criticism published within its pages. You just shift from one subject to the other -- it gets too hot, change the subject.

The simple fact remains: FARMS Review, I don't think, holds itself out as a "serious academic journal." It does not permit a minority view within its pages. Much like the UoC's Journal of Political Economy, which looks for pieces extolling the free market system in its various complexities (note the website advertising today two books on the free market economy), FARMS Review in a much smaller sense says what it needs to say -- as other university journals do.

[_harmony]

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

Sure, Bob. I defy you to show me one from the list that does not openly state its Submission Guidelines. FARMS Review seems to be alone in this.

I don't care a fig about "Submission Guidelines." "Submission Guidelines" do not mean anything in terms of intellectual freedom or lack thereof. The rag I edited, over 100,000 readers, had submission guidelines -- send your manuscript here in Word form and kiss your copyright rights away. That's it.

Then why are you posting on this thread, which is about "submission guidelines", and the lack thereof on the FARMS website? And why are you defending FROB? You've commented several times you don't think they're all that.

[_Chap]

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?

Since you sit on academic journals (and I have sat on a professional journal) perhaps you can answer my questions posed to you above?

I don't care one way or the other if FARMS Review is considered an "academic journal." That's like caring whether Mormons are Christian. Who cares? It is what it is. But, there is nothing wrong with a university publishing a journal advocating, without self-loathing criticism, a particular point of view.

Readers have of course already seen my earlier responses to rcrockett, and indeed to his "you haven't answered my question" rhetoric.

What on earth is the meaning of "self-loathing criticism" here? Or to be more exact, what is rcrockett up to by putting "self-loathing" in front of "criticism" in the context of an attempt to portray FARMS Review as some sort of normal scholarly (or academic, or whatever) journal?

I think he is trying to make it sound like a good, healthy thing in a university context to refuse to publish anything which does not accord with one's own point of view on some particular issue of scholarship - as if those who actually do allow a place to opposing points of view are in some way psychologically unhealthy. Most of the academics I know tend to feel precisely the opposite way about this issue.

[_Chap]

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

Sure, Bob. I defy you to show me one from the list that does not openly state its Submission Guidelines. FARMS Review seems to be alone in this.

I don't care a fig about "Submission Guidelines." "Submission Guidelines" do not mean anything in terms of intellectual freedom or lack thereof. The rag I edited, over 100,000 readers, had submission guidelines -- send your manuscript here in Word form and kiss your copyright rights away. That's it.

My list was a list of one-note-Jonny voices -- particular points of view which would not admit any material criticism published within its pages. You just shift from one subject to the other -- it gets too hot, change the subject.

The simple fact remains: FARMS Review, I don't think, holds itself out as a "serious academic journal." It does not permit a minority view within its pages. Much like the UoC's Journal of Political Economy, which looks for pieces extolling the free market system in its various complexities (note the website advertising today two books on the free market economy), FARMS Review in a much smaller sense says what it needs to say -- as other university journals do.

I read rcrockett's posts with interest as his loyalty to FARMS tries hard to suppress his struggling sense of reality. It is like watching two cats fighting in a bag.

One minute we are told that FARMS Review does not '[hold] itself out as a "serious academic journal"'; it "does not permit a minority view within its pages". (Again, a neat idea to suggest that those who dissent from the FARMS view of Book of Mormon historicity are a 'minority'). OK, we think, game over, point conceded.

But next sentence he lurches back into his "FARMS Review is quite normal" line, by way of a claim that the Journal of Political Economy "looks for pieces extolling the free market system in its various complexities". In fact the topic guidelines run as follows:

One of the oldest and most prestigious journals in economics, the Journal of Political Economy has since 1892 presented significant research and scholarship in economic theory and practice. The journal aims to publish highly selective, widely cited articles of current relevance that will have a long-term impact on economics research. JPE's analytical, interpretive, and empirical studies in a number of areas - including monetary theory, fiscal policy, labor economics, development, micro- and macroeconomic theory, international trade and finance, industrial organization, and social economics - are essential reading for all economists wishing to keep up with substantive new research in the discipline.

(See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/page/jpe/brief.html)

I don't see how that supports rcrockett's contention at all.

Turning to rcrockett's claim that his point is supported by "the website advertising today two books on the free market economy", I suppose we are looking at the same website? I can only see one book advertised there, a collection of papers by Milton Friedman. You don't have to be a supporter of free-market economy to want to publish a book of the collected papers of one of the 20th century's most influential economists - you just have to be interested in economic thought. I begin to perceive that another factor we need to understand in order to follow the dynamics of rcrockett's thought is that he has "issues" about free markets. Let us try not to get distracted in that direction, shall we?

[_John Larsen]

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.

Well I don't have any problem with it. It doesn't bother me. They are just never going to make any impact outside of the in group if they are always playing to the in group. Who is their audience?

[_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.

Well I don't have any problem with it. It doesn't bother me. They are just never going to make any impact outside of the in group if they are always playing to the in group. Who is their audience?

Yes- that is precisely the point.

In a free country like the US, you can publish journals advocating any point of view or course of action you like, so long as what it says does not contravene some pretty minimal legal standards. That is a good thing. FARMS Review is entitled to be freely published and distributed.

But if want large numbers of people to regard your journal as significant, you have to meet more demanding standards. If you want to be valued by football fans, you have to have journalists who get interviews with major coaches and players, and who know the history and internal problems of the big teams. If you want to be valued by the scholarly community, you need to have objective and public standards for submission, and a fair peer-review system for refereeing.

If it becomes known that the editorial board refuses contributions that are relevant to their journal's declared topic, well-evidenced, technically competent and clearly written simply because they contradict the opinions of the editors, then the value ascribed to the journal by other academics will plummet, and publication in that journal will not count for much in (for instance) assessing a young scholar for tenure. Clearly, however, that is what FARMS Review does, and that is why its scholarly value is likely be assessed as low by any academic body outside the very small world of committed LDS scholars.

Who is the audience? I think that question has already been answered several times. There is a small reading group of LDS interested in apologetic issues, for whom it is a 'house journal' - nothing wrong with that. But its wider function is just to exist, so that LDS troubled by attacks on their belief system can be reassured by being told - "don't worry, some really smart academic guys have studied that problem, and there is nothing in it - see, here is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal with their articles in it". Of course, to maintain that position at its most effective, it is necessary to claim for FARMS review an academic status that it does not really merit.

[_rcrocket]

[stuff snipped]

Lots of hubris here. I wonder when you're going to answer my questions.

To summarize my "cats in a bag" views.

FARMS Review is like lots of other academic organs for expressing thought. It expresses a particular view. It uses peer review to make sure the pieces are accurate. It has a target audience.

Sure, it could be more respectable to enemies of its mission by permitting those enemies to publish within its pages. But, somehow, I just don't see that happening. It is respectable to those who enjoy reading its pages. It fulfills its mission and does a wonderful job at it.