Smith: With the Review during Dehlin Review?

[_Kishkumen]

I am pulling this out of a longer post because this is a point that deserves special attention. On page 51 of his new article, "Return of the Unread Review," Greg Smith seems to reveal his close affiliation with the Review when he authored and tried to publish his original hit piece on John Dehlin.

Repeatedly, he says "we" and "us" when he refers to the attempts of the editorial board of the Review in their attempt to get the next volume, from which his hit piece had been yanked, out. This is significant because of the repeat denials that the hit piece was commissioned. Be that as it may, an article can hardly be considered an independent effort when it is written by a member of the editorial board, or someone who is informally but effectively acting as such. This is clearly what his language suggests:

We had the "hole" [left by the removal of Smith's review] filled quickly, and even had extra essays available for which there was no room in the issue. The block on my review put us further behind schedule mainly because Bradford thereafter instructed an all in-house editing work on the Review to stop for a period of time, so no progress was made on the other essays in hand. Even prior to my review's existence, publication of the next issue had been stalled because Bradford and others continued to divert editorial resources away from preparation of the Mormon Studies Review over a period of about eight months. At the time, we believed that there were simply high demands on editorial staff for other projects, and did our best to cooperate. In retrospect, this appears to have been a rather calculated and cynical effort to manufacture grounds for firing Peterson and criticizing the then-current incarnation of the Review as unacceptably behind schedule--as Bradford attempted to do in his e-mail. Without informing Peterson or the associate editors, Maxwell Institute editorial support staff were also told by Bradford and others under his direction that an essay by John Gee would not be published. One suspects, again in retrospect, that this rather high-handed interference without explanation or even notification was aimed at frustrating Peterson to the point of resignation

(Emphasis in bold mine)

This is a remarkable passage. What Greg Smith seems to be telling his reader is that he was acting in the capacity of an associate editor in the period when he authored the John Dehlin hit piece. As an associate editor, his pseudo-review of Dehlin was not a truly independent work of "scholarship" but something written by a contributing voluntary staff-member of the Review which was designated for publication therein. Furthermore, it seems highly likely, although I don't know for a fact, that his publication would have occurred without any real double-blind peer-review process.

In any case, I think this throws new light on the situation, indicating as it does that Greg Smith was acting as part of the administrative group running the Review when he authored the hit piece, and he continued to act in that capacity in the aftermath of its removal by Bradford.

[_Ludd]

I am pulling this out of a longer post because this is a point that deserves special attention. On page 51 of his new article, "Return of the Unread Review," Greg Smith seems to reveal his close affiliation with the Review when he authored and tried to publish his original hit piece on John Dehlin.

Repeatedly, he says "we" and "us" when he refers to the attempts of the editorial board of the Review in their attempt to get the next volume, from which his hit piece had been yanked, out. This is significant because of the repeat denials that the hit piece was commissioned. Be that as it may, an article can hardly be considered an independent effort when it is written by a member of the editorial board, or someone who is informally but effectively acting as such. This is clearly what his language suggests:

We had the "hole" [left by the removal of Smith's review] filled quickly, and even had extra essays available for which there was no room in the issue. The block on my review put us further behind schedule mainly because Bradford thereafter instructed an all in-house editing work on the Review to stop for a period of time, so no progress was made on the other essays in hand. Even prior to my review's existence, publication of the next issue had been stalled because Bradford and others continued to divert editorial resources away from preparation of the Mormon Studies Review over a period of about eight months. At the time, we believed that there were simply high demands on editorial staff for other projects, and did our best to cooperate. In retrospect, this appears to have been a rather calculated and cynical effort to manufacture grounds for firing Peterson and criticizing the then-current incarnation of the Review as unacceptably behind schedule--as Bradford attempted to do in his e-mail. Without informing Peterson or the associate editors, Maxwell Institute editorial support staff were also told by Bradford and others under his direction that an essay by John Gee would not be published. One suspects, again in retrospect, that this rather high-handed interference without explanation or even notification was aimed at frustrating Peterson to the point of resignation

(Emphasis in bold mine)

This is a remarkable passage. What Greg Smith seems to be telling his reader is that he was acting in the capacity of an associate editor in the period when he authored the John Dehlin hit piece. As an associate editor, his pseudo-review of Dehlin was not a truly independent work of "scholarship" but something written by a contributing voluntary staff-member of the Review which was designated for publication therein. Furthermore, it seems highly likely, although I don't know for a fact, that his publication would have occurred without any real double-blind peer-review process.

In any case, I think this throws new light on the situation, indicating as it does that Greg Smith was acting as part of the administrative group running the Review when he authored the hit piece, and he continued to act in that capacity in the aftermath of its removal by Bradford.

If I recall correctly, Smith and Robert White were both announced as Associate Editors of the Mormon Studies Review in conjunction with its one and only issue. Seems like it was in Peterson's intro to that issue that it was announced. I don't remember if it was ever announced on the MI website.

[_Kishkumen]

If I recall correctly, Smith and Robert White were both announced as Associate Editors of the Mormon Studies Review in conjunction with its one and only issue. Seems like it was in Peterson's intro to that issue that it was announced. I don't remember if it was ever announced on the MI website.

Thanks, Ludd. Smith records (RUR, 67) that he wrote to Bradford on 25 June 2012 to ask if he had been fired. So it seems that Smith was indeed a formal Maxwell Institute staff-person at the time, and that he probably took the position anticipating that he would be a regular part of the operation. Thus the Dehlin hit piece was written by a member of the Review's editorial board and, it would seem, part of the staff at Maxwell.

My point here is that when a member of the editorial board of a university publication writes a piece to be published in that publication with the only "peer review" being suggestions from other members of the board of editors, you are not dealing with anything like a scholarly article, or even the usual practices for book reviews. For the latter, the editor usually solicits a book review from an outside scholar.

Thus, the whole question of the commissioning of the piece is settled. A board member of this university publication wrote it for the publication. This was, indeed, an "inside" job.

[_lulu]

There weren't alot of firewalls there.

As has been noted earlier the former editor was also the former fund raiser-in-chief.

I am pulling this out of a longer post because this is a point that deserves special attention. On page 51 of his new article, "Return of the Unread Review," Greg Smith seems to reveal his close affiliation with the Review when he authored and tried to publish his original hit piece on John Dehlin.

Repeatedly, he says "we" and "us" when he refers to the attempts of the editorial board of the Review in their attempt to get the next volume, from which his hit piece had been yanked, out. This is significant because of the repeat denials that the hit piece was commissioned. Be that as it may, an article can hardly be considered an independent effort when it is written by a member of the editorial board, or someone who is informally but effectively acting as such. This is clearly what his language suggests:

We had the "hole" [left by the removal of Smith's review] filled quickly, and even had extra essays available for which there was no room in the issue. The block on my review put us further behind schedule mainly because Bradford thereafter instructed an all in-house editing work on the Review to stop for a period of time, so no progress was made on the other essays in hand. Even prior to my review's existence, publication of the next issue had been stalled because Bradford and others continued to divert editorial resources away from preparation of the Mormon Studies Review over a period of about eight months. At the time, we believed that there were simply high demands on editorial staff for other projects, and did our best to cooperate. In retrospect, this appears to have been a rather calculated and cynical effort to manufacture grounds for firing Peterson and criticizing the then-current incarnation of the Review as unacceptably behind schedule--as Bradford attempted to do in his e-mail. Without informing Peterson or the associate editors, Maxwell Institute editorial support staff were also told by Bradford and others under his direction that an essay by John Gee would not be published. One suspects, again in retrospect, that this rather high-handed interference without explanation or even notification was aimed at frustrating Peterson to the point of resignation

(Emphasis in bold mine)

This is a remarkable passage. What Greg Smith seems to be telling his reader is that he was acting in the capacity of an associate editor in the period when he authored the John Dehlin hit piece. As an associate editor, his pseudo-review of Dehlin was not a truly independent work of "scholarship" but something written by a contributing voluntary staff-member of the Review which was designated for publication therein. Furthermore, it seems highly likely, although I don't know for a fact, that his publication would have occurred without any real double-blind peer-review process.

In any case, I think this throws new light on the situation, indicating as it does that Greg Smith was acting as part of the administrative group running the Review when he authored the hit piece, and he continued to act in that capacity in the aftermath of its removal by Bradford.

[_Doctor Scratch]

We've always basically known that the classic-FARMS "peer review" was more or less analogous to them standing around in the locker room, snapping towels at each other and telling sophomoric jokes. It's nice to have Smith confirm it in print, though.

[_wayfarer]

We've always basically known that the classic-FARMS "peer review" was more or less analogous to them standing around in the locker room, snapping towels at each other and telling sophomoric jokes. It's nice to have Smith confirm it in print, though.

peterson, smith, hamblin, and midgley in a locker room...that is a picture i did not need to visualize...

[_sock puppet]

Fn. 4 (p. 2) of the RUR lists the editorial team as Daniel C. Peterson, Louis C. Midgley, George Mitton, Robert B. White, and Gregory L. Smith

[_Kishkumen]

Fn. 4 (p. 2) of the RUR lists the editorial team as Daniel C. Peterson, Louis C. Midgley, George Mitton, Robert B. White, and Gregory L. Smith

Thanks, sock puppet.