DiscussMormonism.com

The recent thread on payment made to apologists has had me thinking a bit about FARMS Review and its status, as DCP once put it, as a "sui generis" journal. Also, rcrocket made some rather dunderheaded comments about it which have now been memorialized in Liz's signature line.

What just dawned on me, though, is that FARMS Review is utterly insular as an "academic" journal. Prof. P. and others have gone to great lengths to try and demonstrate how it is actually "no different" than any other scholarly journal, but today I noticed something very peculiar. Here is the tidbit from the FARMS website:

The principal purpose of the FARMS Review is to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books published, primarily on the Book of Mormon. The evaluations are intended to encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon and the other ancient scriptures.

Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.

(emphasis added)

Now, this is significant. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but the standard practice in academia is to have this sort of thing out in the open. Normally, anyone can submit a manuscript to a journal, and the journal typically lists its Style Guidelines right there out in the open on its website. (Just type the name of a reputable journal into Google, go to the website, and see whether they list what their submission guidelines are.) Why, I wonder, is FARMS Review withholding this information? Is there some admonition about adhering to LDS orthodoxy in the Guidelines? I can't be sure, but what is obvious is that this is very, very peculiar. I cannot help but wonder about why this normally "out in the open" information is being kept secret at FARMS Review.

The other odd thing is the admission that they hand-pick their reviewers. Rather than receiving work from scholars of all stripes, this description openly admits that they are only selecting people that will attack critics ad hominem and who will uphold Church orthodoxy. In apparent opposition to the normal scholarly journal practice of soliciting the best scholarship out there, FARMS Review makes its submission guidelines obscure, and, in fact, seems to be saying, "Hey, no, don't bother submitting scholarship to us. We prefer to pick and choose from a pre-set pool of writers."

In any case, I just found this very interesting. It is yet another bit of evidence that FARMS Review does things its own way, and that it should not be viewed as being on a par with normal academic journals.

Mister Scratch wrote:Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.(emphasis added)

Now, this is significant. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but the standard practice in academia is to have this sort of thing out in the open. Normally, anyone can submit a manuscript to a journal, and the journal typically lists its Style Guidelines right there out in the open on its website.

One of my two reviews was not "by invitation" in the strict sense. I submitted it without an invitation or any commitment to publish, they liked it, and decided to publish it. I imagine that Farms Review gets lots of unsolicited papers and if they like it, they "invite" it. This is standard technique in academia. The following journals publish by invitation only but receive unsolicited manuscripts which may generate an invitation:

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
The AAPS Journal (ISSN 1550-7416) published by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
The American Journal of Pathology
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS (this is an Elsevier entity, one of the nation's largest academic publishers)

To name a few. You haven't much experience in academia, I take it?

The other odd thing is the admission that they hand-pick their reviewers.

Many times in the past I have asked you to identify a single academic journal where reviewers are not "hand-picked" by somebody (usually the Board of Editors or the Editor in Chief). You never responded.

In any case, I just found this very interesting. It is yet another bit of evidence that FARMS Review does things its own way, and that it should not be viewed as being on a par with normal academic journals.

Again, I think your beef really is with the subject (Mormons, gold plates, angels, miracles, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young) and not with the journal itself. The Review limits itself to subject matter most academics would not touch as simply strangely metaphysical in nature. But, really, how is that different than Judaica? Wouldn't an evolutionary biologist and atheist have the same conclusions about Judaica and pieces about the First Book of Moses? I.e., who in their right mind would publish this tripe in Judaica? What kind of expert reviewers have you?

rcrocket wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.(emphasis added)

Now, this is significant. I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but the standard practice in academia is to have this sort of thing out in the open. Normally, anyone can submit a manuscript to a journal, and the journal typically lists its Style Guidelines right there out in the open on its website.

One of my two reviews was not "by invitation" in the strict sense. I submitted it without an invitation or any commitment to publish, they liked it, and decided to publish it.

Oh, really? And *how* did you submit it? I'm just curious, since, oddly, there are no submission guidelines listed at the FARMS Review website.

I imagine that Farms Review gets lots of unsolicited papers

How, though? How is this possible, if no one knows were to send the MSS?

and if they like it, they "invite" it. This is standard technique in academia. The following journals publish by invitation only but receive unsolicited manuscripts which may generate an invitation:

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
The AAPS Journal (ISSN 1550-7416) published by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
The American Journal of Pathology
JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS (this is an Elsevier entity, one of the nation's largest academic publishers)

To name a few.

Well, you're wrong about at least one of these. The American Journal of Pathology has this in its "Authors" section:

Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts should be submitted online via the Rapid Review system. Detailed instructions on preparing and submitting files can be found on the author submission website. Authors having difficulty submitting files online should complete the online submission form on Rapid Review to receive the assigned manuscript number, and mail one printed and one electronic (disk) copy of the manuscript, as well as one publication-quality printed set and electronic copy of the figures. These items should be clearly marked with the assigned manuscript number and sent to: Jay M. McDonald, M.D., Editor-in-Chief, The American Journal of Pathology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland, USA 20814-3993. The cover letter must state any conflicts of interest (both financial and personal), affirm that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not being considered concurrently by another publication, and affirm that all authors and acknowledged contributors have read and approved the manuscript. Submissions will be ineligible for review if previously published in any form (print or online) other than as an abstract. This includes any public posting of raw manuscripts or pre-reviewed material.

Whoops! I guess you forgot to read that, eh, Bob? Where is the equivalent of this on the FARMS website? Huh?

Here's the submission information for Journal of Biomechanics:

Submissions

Authors are requested to submit their original manuscript and figures online via http://ees.elsevier.com/bm/. This is the Elsevier web-based submission and review system. You will find full instructions located on this site - a Guide for Authors and a Guide for Online Submission. Please follow these guide lines to prepare and upload your article. Once the uploading is done, our system automatically generates an electronic pdf proof, which is then used for reviewing. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revisions, will be managed via this system.

Paper submissions are not normally accepted. If you cannot submit electronically, please email the editorial office for assistance on JBM@elsevier.com

No such similar material exists on the FARMS website, Bob. The implication is that FARMS doesn't want any scholarship other than that which will affirm the Brethren. They are not asking for the kind of balanced, well-rounded scholarship that is requested by these other, far more honest, balanced, and serious journals. It's just as I've said: FARMS Review is an insular publication that is really only aimed at attacking critics.

The other odd thing is the admission that they hand-pick their reviewers.

Many times in the past I have asked you to identify a single academic journal where reviewers are not "hand-picked" by somebody (usually the Board of Editors or the Editor in Chief). You never responded.

No, no. The bit I cited is referring to Book Reviewers, not peer reviewers. Normally, book reviews are simply submitted by interested scholars. Not so with FARMS Review. Instead, as per this "admission", FARMS Review draws from a pool of loyal, orthodox, TBM "scholars", such as Russell McGregor and Kerry Shirts. This sort of thing is most definitely not standard operating procedure. It proves, as I've said before, that FARMS Review is utilizing a "stacked deck" form of "scholarship".

In any case, I just found this very interesting. It is yet another bit of evidence that FARMS Review does things its own way, and that it should not be viewed as being on a par with normal academic journals.

Again, I think your beef really is with the subject (Mormons, gold plates, angels, miracles, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young) and not with the journal itself.

And yet, oddly, "my beef" never mentions that stuff. If FARMS Review actually used and maintained the same standards as other academic journals, then no doubt I wouldn't have much of an argument.

Riddle me this then:

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?

rcrocket wrote:Riddle me this then:

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

No.

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

No. Rather, my contention is that A) FARMS Review is not a "serious academic journal," and, moreover, that it has a "mission" totally different from that of normal academic journals. Part of the evidence for this lies in the absence of Submission Guidelines on the FARMS website.

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.

rcrocket wrote:Riddle me this then:

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 am on the editorial board of a number of academic journals. [You may if you wish read the rest of my post in the belief that this statement is a lie].

I have sometimes been asked to write a 'state of the field' article for a journal on the basis of invitation. But 90% of my publications have got into print because I submitted them unsolicited to journal editors.

The concept of 'alternative views to the essential mission of the journal' puzzles me. Consider a major science journal such as Physics Letters A - see

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa ... escription

We are told by the editors:

Physics Letters A offers an exciting publication outlet for novel and frontier physics. It encourages the submission of new research on: condensed matter physics, theoretical physics, nonlinear science, statistical physics, mathematical and computational physics, general and cross-disciplinary physics (including foundations), atomic, molecular and cluster physics, plasma and fluid physics, optical physics, biological physics and nanoscience. No articles on High Energy and Nuclear Physics are published in Physics Letters A. The journal's high standard and wide dissemination ensures a broad readership amongst the physics community. Rapid publication times and flexible length restrictions give Physics Letters A the edge over other journals in the field.

This journal. like many others, defines its coverage by topic - if your article is about physics in any of the fields set out above, you can send it in. So long as the mathematics and experimental data in your article pass muster, you may well get published. You do not have to have some particular point of view or fit in with some 'essential mission' on (say) condensed matter physics.

The difference with FARMS is obvious and glaring. It does not define its coverage by topic, but by the point of view taken on that topic. Its pages are clearly not open to anybody with an interest in research into the Book of Mormon. You will (notoriously) only get published there if you agree with particular views about the Book of Mormon. A paper which suggests that the Book of Mormon text can best be explained on the Spaulding/Rigdon theory just doesn't have a chance of publication.

Contrast this with the criteria laid down for acceptance by Physics Letters A under its peer review process:

Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is work of sufficient originality
- Is of high scientific quality
- Is methodologically sound
- Is timely
- Is of sufficient urgency to require rapid publication
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines (plagiarism is not tolerated, and is a basis for rejection!)
- Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly references previous relevant work

See http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa ... 5/preface1

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

John Larsen wrote: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."

Mister Scratch wrote:

John Larsen wrote: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.

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? 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?