I met DCP this evening

[_Yoda]

For the record, it's probably pretty clear.. I like Daniel. He is a nice person and has always been extremely kind to me. We don't always agree on issues, but we have been able to amicably disagree, which I think is key. Thanks for the update, Seth! :)

Daniel, if you ever find yourself in NC, shoot me an email. I know you enjoy cultural events. You would be more than welcome to attend one if my studio Master Classes. No speaking by you required. Just an evening of good music provided by my students and myself, along with good food. :)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Sweet, thanks for the overview, SB.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sethbag,

I've had the pleasure of meeting more than one poster from this board and found them to be much like the impression that they gave me on the screen. My impression of Daniel is nearly identical to what you described and I agree with Schmo who added that he thinks Daniel frequents this board for the same reasons that many of us do.

He's just a guy hanging out here like the rest of us.

My only concern regarding your OP is why you're wearing flowers in October.

:-)

[_Gadianton]

Anyways, what I look forward to is exactly how it is "FARMS" will have something negative to say about Meldrum. Will it be through multiple reviewers? Will it be by an official statement by FARMS? Because, see, in the past, it's been suggested that FARMS is not a monolithic organization with all members marching in lock step. It's been stressed that the reviews of various books reflect the opinions of the reviewers, and not those of the MI. So it will be interesting to see in what form the denouncement of Meldrum comes. That should tell us something about how the official viewpoint of the MI is disseminated.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is how it's gonna go down, Gad:

I'll ask somebody to review Meldrum's DVD. Maybe I'll ask more than one person, if the mood strikes me.

There won't be any meetings to determine what the reviewer(s) will say. There won't be any length specified in advance.

The reviewer(s) will write something.

I'll probably like it, whatever it is, because I'll have chosen one or more reviewers who (I have good reason to expect) will write something good.

The editors of the FARMS Review will read the review(s) carefully and make a determination to publish or not to publish. We'll edit the review(s), if we approve the review(s), and we'll publish the review(s). We'll publish the review(s), as we always do, with the proviso that the opinions of the reviewer(s) are not necessarily those of the Institute.

It's a pretty straightforward process. Of course, I realize that it's ineffably mysterious and deeply threatening when viewed in the carnival funhouse mirrors of Scartchodoxy.

[_Mister Scratch]

The reviewer(s) will write something.

I'll probably like it, whatever it is, because I'll have chosen one or more reviewers who (I have good reason to expect) will write something good.

Right-o.

Many of us have long speculated that the FARMS Review utilizes a "stacked deck" method of publication and peer review. Now, here we have an admission, from the mouth of the Editor in Chief, that, in fact, FARMS hand picks authors to write the reviews. This supplies yet another piece of evidence that the peer review process is a real sham, and that, in fact, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to academic, double-blind peer review, except in the most superficial sense.

The editors of the FARMS Review will read the review(s) carefully and make a determination to publish or not to publish. We'll edit the review(s), if we approve the review(s), and we'll publish the review(s). We'll publish the review(s), as we always do, with the proviso that the opinions of the reviewer(s) are not necessarily those of the Institute.

Right-o. After "carefully" hand-picking the reviewer, after "carefully" reading the review, after "carefully" meeting with other FARMS board members in order to determine the review's "efficacy," after "carefully" deliberating on whether to publish, the review will find its way into print, albeit with the disclaimer that its "opinions...are not necessarily those of the Institute."

Right-o. You guys try to establish a patina of credibility, and yet you are unwilling to stand behind your own commissioned hit pieces. I have to say, I envy your tactics.

It's a pretty straightforward process.

Right-o. Just like Church finances, or the payments made to apologists.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Many of us

Which, being interpreted, means you and, to a much lesser extent, Mini-Scartch. Anybody else?

have long speculated that the FARMS Review utilizes a "stacked deck" method of publication and peer review. Now, here we have an admission, from the mouth of the Editor in Chief, that, in fact, FARMS hand picks authors to write the reviews.

You're a nutcase, Scartch.

Book review editors at even the most mainstream academic journals routinely solicit reviews from people. That's typically how it's done.

I've written probably somewhere around a dozen book reviews for non-LDS scholarly journals. All but the very last two were solicited from me by their book review editors. (In the last two cases, I volunteered.)

I've never concealed the fact that we typically solicit reviews. I think I must have mentioned it at least two score times, on message boards, in the Review itself, and elsewhere. Now, I realize that you're not very familiar with the contents of the Review, but I think I've even told you several times. Directly. It's scarcely a secret. It's standard operating procedure.

This supplies yet another piece of evidence that the peer review process is a real sham, and that, in fact, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to academic, double-blind peer review, except in the most superficial sense.

You're stunningly ignorant. Breathtakingly clueless.

you are unwilling to stand behind your own commissioned hit pieces.

You're simply bizarre.

[_Mister Scratch]

Many of us

Which, being interpreted, means you and, to a much lesser extent, Mini-Scartch. Anybody else?

have long speculated that the FARMS Review utilizes a "stacked deck" method of publication and peer review. Now, here we have an admission, from the mouth of the Editor in Chief, that, in fact, FARMS hand picks authors to write the reviews.

You're a nutcase, Scartch.

Book review editors at even the most mainstream academic journals routinely solicit reviews from people. That's typically how it's done.

Yes: for their "Book Reviews" section. What you are not telling people out there in the "audience" is that the "Book Reviews" section is usually a lesser addendum to the more hardcore, scholarly material. The "real" research and meat of the journal, as it were. Are you thus admitting that such material is entirely absent from FARMS Review---i.e., that the journal is, how shall I say... sui generis?

I've written probably somewhere around a dozen book reviews for non-LDS scholarly journals. All but the very last two were solicited from me by their book review editors. (In the last two cases, I volunteered.)

No, really? And how many peer-reviewed scholarly pieces have you written that were commissioned?

I've never concealed the fact that we typically solicit reviews. I think I must have mentioned it at least two score times, on message boards, in the Review itself, and elsewhere. Now, I realize that you're not very familiar with the contents of the Review, but I think I've even told you several times. Directly. It's scarcely a secret. It's standard operating procedure.

It is not "standard operating procedure" in mainstream academia to commission one's most important peer-reviewed scholarly work.

This supplies yet another piece of evidence that the peer review process is a real sham, and that, in fact, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to academic, double-blind peer review, except in the most superficial sense.

You're stunningly ignorant. Breathtakingly clueless.

Oh? Can you point me to another journal where virtually all of the content is both "peer reviewed" and commissioned by the same editor who selects the peer reviewers?

you are unwilling to stand behind your own commissioned hit pieces.

You're simply bizarre.

Oh? So the opinions expressed in the journal called FARMS Review really do reflect upon FARMS? All of you guys are willing to stand behind and support, say, "That Old Black Magic"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes: for their "Book Reviews" section.

The FARMS Review, formerly known as the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon and then as the FARMS Review of Books, is, in its entirety, a collection of book reviews -- and, very often, of book review essays.

We, um, tried to make that clear via our title. Sorry it didn't work for you.

What you are not telling people out there in the "audience" is that the "Book Reviews" section is usually a lesser addendum to the more hardcore, scholarly material. The "real" research and meat of the journal, as it were.

Anybody who's ever looked at a typical scholarly journal knows that the book reviews are generally only a portion of an academic journal's content.

You imagine that I'm somehow hiding this?

No wonder you need a creepy network of anonymous informants to make you aware of easily accessible information.

However, I wouldn't agree that the book reviews in a typical academic journal are necessarily less scholarly than the rest of the journal's content. That simply isn't the case, in my experience.

Are you thus admitting that such material is entirely absent from FARMS Review---i.e., that the journal is, how shall I say... sui generis?

It's a bit atypical, but it's not entirely without precedent. The New York Review of Books, London's Times Literary Supplement, the New York Times Book Review, the Religious Studies Review, the Review of Biblical Literature, the Theologische Literaturzeitung -- there are many quite reputable periodicals devoted entirely to book reviews.

No, really? And how many peer-reviewed scholarly pieces have you written that were commissioned?

Twelve to fifteen, I would guess without looking.

Apart from my book reviews.

All of you guys are willing to stand behind and support, say, "That Old Black Magic"?

I certainly am.

You're crazy, Scartch. Get help.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, Sethbag, many thanks for your kind gift of the book. It looks interesting, and I'll try to get to it soon. (Maybe if I can wean myself from my odd fascination with acute congenital Scartcholepsy just a bit -- it's a bottomless well, a dark tunnel without an end, a hopeless tar baby -- I'll have more time to read worthwhile things.)