Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_rcrocket]

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.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Are you saying the Farms Review is not a scholarly journal, but is rather an ideological journal?

edited to correct formatting

Just for clarification sake, the journal is currently called Farms Review.

[_harmony]

Are you saying the Farms Review is not a scholarly journal, but is rather an ideological journal?

edited to correct formatting

Just for clarification sake, the journal is currently called Farms Review.

So noted.

[_antishock8]

Anyway, back to the point since we've been chasing little red fishies all over this thread (that's for LoaP since he doesn't know what a Red Herring is).

False.

Well, you were then deliberately misleading which is not a surprise. At all. Ever.

It's ok to lie because sometimes a Nazi will kill a Jew if we don't lie, so we just have to determine what is and what isn't an acceptable lie.

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

LoaP is clearly using the feminine as a perjorative.

Disagree.

You are a liar.

[_rcrocket]

Yes, I suspect this as well. I suspect that those authors who are chummy with the Editor in Chief are basically given carte blanche to pop off essentially at will.

I think that is true, but that is also true of many, many ideological journals.

Are you saying the Farms Review is not a scholarly journal, but is rather an ideological journal?

edited to correct formatting

FARMS Review is, in large part, an ideological journal printed to publish the works of mostly (but not all) academics. But, there are many examples of scholarly pieces which underwent significant amounts of review and editing. Looking back at the last 5 years you will see many examples of publications by respected LDS scholars on scholarly, original, subjects.

[_Mister Scratch]

Now, this is odd. How would you know that "history professors" reviewed your articles, Bob, if the journal uses normative peer review? Or are you just assuming? Further, if they put in "12 months of cite-checking," then they apparently did a shoddy job, since they overlooked that embarrassing elipsis in your MMM article.

No such event occurred with my paper in the least. You're just making this up. I know "history professors" scoured my article because some of them were identified to me as the process went on. One, as I recall, was not with BYU.

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

This just doesn't seem to be the case, Bob. Peer reviewers at typical academic journals are selected on the basis of expertise, rather than loyalty to Church orthodoxy, or, perhaps more accurately, loyalty to LDS apologetics.

That may be true for fluff articles where little expertise is needed, but not true for others where expertise is needed. I can observe that first hand.

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

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?

You've overstated Bushman's views in your prior post. As I suspected.

I disagree. Perhaps, if you're willing to rummage around with the search feature, you'll located that other ZLMB reference I was referring to.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

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?

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.

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

[_rcrocket]

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.

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.

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.

[_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.

[_rcrocket]

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.


"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.