The FROB Submission Guidlines

[Physics Guy]

Not terribly long ago, I recall pointing out to LifeOnaPlate that it seemed very unusual that FARMS Review's submission guidelines were not out in the open. On the old MI website, readers were told something to the effect, that, "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."

I should say that I am quoting from the current FARMS Review webpage. Since my exchange with LoaP, it seems that the webmaster for FARMS has added a .pdf of the FARMS Review submission guidelines. It could be that they had been posted all along, though I believe that these are relatively new additions to the website.

Anyways, you can link to the .pdf here:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

There were a number of things I found interesting about the guidelines.

Purpose
Our primary purpose is to help readers find books that are worth reading. They need information about the content of the book and its quality, including both its strengths and its weaknesses. Your evaluation of why the book or its topic is interesting or important, or is not, will be useful to them. Such evaluations should also encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

It seems to me that this isn't very accurate. Rather, FARMS Review tends to focus far more often on books which the reviewers absolutely, positively do not want anyone to read. At the very least, I think this "purpose" section should be revised to reflect the fact that a very high percentage of the Review is devoted to attacking and tearing down Mormon-related books.

Audience
Assume that the readers of the Review are serious students of the Book of Mormon and are familiar with its story, characters, and doctrines. However, given the diversity of our readers and the interdisciplinary nature of work on the Book of Mormon, you should not assume that they have an academic background.

I guess this helps explain the lambasting of the FHE game? Since "serious students of the Book of Mormon" (and the Book of Abraham, and the Bible, and the D&C, right?) would be interested in hearing about all of the problems with a family night game?

I thought this next bit was the funniest:

Focus
A review essay usually focuses on the book being reviewed, rather than on larger issues in the field that the book covers.

Yes, that *is* usually the case! With FARMS Review, however, readers get the opportunity to learn all sorts of things about authors' characters, such as that Mike Quinn is a "bad historian."

Something I found rather unusual was this:

Sources
You are required to submit photocopies of your sources along with your essay. This is a condition of publication. For a book, please photocopy the page quoted, the title page, and the copyright page so that the following information is visible: quotation, page of quotation, title of book, author, editor or translator, publisher, place of publication, and publication year. Usually this data is found on the title page, copyright page, and page of the quotation.

(bold emphasis ibid)

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. Usually, graduate students---or other office assistants---are sent out to confirm quotations. So, why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

It seems to me the reason is obvious: (1) they want to be extra scrupulous, and (2) FARMS authors frequently attack books on the basis of source accuracy. In other words, the FARMS Review editorial staff is looking to cover its butt. This also seems to reflect a kind of hyper, knee-jerk paranoia. Most scholars are willing to give other authors the benefit of doubt, and to assume that people are finagling their sources. The FARMS authors, on the other hand, seem to be anticipating that someone will go after their use of sources, and that they will lose all kinds of credibility, hence this rather excessive "insurance policy."

Finally, I found this bit intriguing:

Revisions
The editors of the Review will read your review and may make suggestions aimed at improving clarity, cohesion, and the overall quality and strength of your argument.

Does "strength of your argument" refer to the many character assassinations and ad hominem attacks which appear in the Review?

Some suggestions may aim to make your essay fit better with others to be published in the same issue. We hope that you will consider the suggestions to be friendly and will think through them carefully. We believe that our goal and yours are the same—to help serious students of the Book of Mormon make informed choices and judgments about the books published on the Book of Mormon and to encourage reliable scholarship on this key scripture.

This last bit seems very odd to me. "informed choices and judgements"? Honestly, what are people supposed to think about, say, Tvedtnes's review of Dr. Shades's writings? What about the anti-FHE hit piece, or Hamblin's smearing of Mike Quinn? What about the excessive Grant Palmer articles?

In any case, I just thought others might be interested to view these submission guidelines, and to consider the ways they do or do not actually correspond to the material that winds up in the FARMS Review.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The following is a standard response:

Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. A particular focus of his hatred is the FARMS Review, which I founded and edit.

The FARMS Review has been appearing, now, for very nearly twenty years. The entirety of every issue of the Review is available on line, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Anyone interested in inspecting the FARMS Review for himself or herself, without Scartch’s defamatory spin, without Scartch’s hostile selection and editing, without looking through the distorting Scartchian lens, is entirely welcome to do so.

I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time -- especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

[_Mister Scratch]

[b]The following is a standard response:

Really, Dan, why must you take criticism of the FROB so personally? On Beastie's thread, you were blubbering about how everything is "about" you, and yet, in my OP, there was no mention of you whatsoever. And here you are, flailing about like a stuck pig, completely incapable of offering up a cogent counterargument. Are you really that weak, Professor P.?

[_Mike Reed]

Sources
You are required to submit photocopies of your sources along with your essay. This is a condition of publication. For a book, please photocopy the page quoted, the title page, and the copyright page so that the following information is visible: quotation, page of quotation, title of book, author, editor or translator, publisher, place of publication, and publication year. Usually this data is found on the title page, copyright page, and page of the quotation.

(bold emphasis ibid)

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. Usually, graduate students---or other office assistants---are sent out to confirm quotations. So, why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

When I wrote a review for FARMS several years ago, this requirement was indeed a pain in the ass. If I remember correctly, my review was only 10 pages long, but the stack of photocopies I submitted was nearly two inches thick. I agree with you that FARMS' requirement is probably more than other journals require, and is most certainly intended to protect FARMS (and by extension, BYU and the Church) and make sure sources are cited appropriately. Now I mean no offence, Scratch... but I am confused by your negative reaction to this requirement. On one hand, you criticize FARMS of not being scholarly enough (not being peer review, whatever)... and then, when FARMS show themselves to be exceptional in certain areas, you call it "knee jerk paranoia."

[_Jason Bourne]

Purpose
Our primary purpose is to help readers find books that are worth reading. They need information about the content of the book and its quality, including both its strengths and its weaknesses. Your evaluation of why the book or its topic is interesting or important, or is not, will be useful to them. Such evaluations should also encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

It seems to me that this isn't very accurate. Rather, FARMS Review tends to focus far more often on books which the reviewers absolutely, positively do not want anyone to read. At the very least, I think this "purpose" section should be revised to reflect the fact that a very high percentage of the Review is devoted to attacking and tearing down Mormon-related books.

Who cares what it seems to you. We know your mission is to smear FARMS. It seems to me FARMS Review meets the goal it states here and my opinion is as valid as yours.

by the way, I think every post you post about FARMS and LDS apologetics needs to state your primary purpose which seems to me to be "To tear down the content and to smear and assassinate the character of LDS apologetics and all those so associated with innuendo, character assassination and over the top hyperbole." Please start putting this in your tag line.

Sources
You are required to submit photocopies of your sources along with your essay. This is a condition of publication. For a book, please photocopy the page quoted, the title page, and the copyright page so that the following information is visible: quotation, page of quotation, title of book, author, editor or translator, publisher, place of publication, and publication year. Usually this data is found on the title page, copyright page, and page of the quotation.

(bold emphasis ibid)

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. Usually, graduate students---or other office assistants---are sent out to confirm quotations.

Really? And you know this exactly how? How many journals and their internal processes are you really familiar with Scratch?

So, why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

Well you are going to tell us below with your never ending nefarious spin putting.

It seems to me the reason is obvious: (1) they want to be extra scrupulous, and (2) FARMS authors frequently attack books on the basis of source accuracy. In other words, the FARMS Review editorial staff is looking to cover its butt. This also seems to reflect a kind of hyper, knee-jerk paranoia. Most scholars are willing to give other authors the benefit of doubt, and to assume that people are finagling their sources. The FARMS authors, on the other hand, seem to be anticipating that someone will go after their use of sources, and that they will lose all kinds of credibility, hence this rather excessive "insurance policy.

Or maybe they are just trying to endure the quality of the review. This seems more likely to me.

Revisions
The editors of the Review will read your review and may make suggestions aimed at improving clarity, cohesion, and the overall quality and strength of your argument.

Does "strength of your argument" refer to the many character assassinations and ad hominem attacks which appear in the Review?

No.

[_harmony]

Not terribly long ago, I recall pointing out to LifeOnaPlate that it seemed very unusual that FARMS Review's submission guidelines were not out in the open. On the old MI website, readers were told something to the effect, that, "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."

I should say that I am quoting from the current FARMS Review webpage. Since my exchange with LoaP, it seems that the webmaster for FARMS has added a .pdf of the FARMS Review submission guidelines. It could be that they had been posted all along, though I believe that these are relatively new additions to the website.

Anyways, you can link to the .pdf here:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

This is a good thing. No criticism should be forthcoming about this.

Purpose
Our primary purpose is to help readers find books that are worth reading. They need information about the content of the book and its quality, including both its strengths and its weaknesses. Your evaluation of why the book or its topic is interesting or important, or is not, will be useful to them. Such evaluations should also encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

It seems to me that this isn't very accurate. Rather, FARMS Review tends to focus far more often on books which the reviewers absolutely, positively do not want anyone to read. At the very least, I think this "purpose" section should be revised to reflect the fact that a very high percentage of the Review is devoted to attacking and tearing down Mormon-related books.

If what you say is correct, the review will only push people to read the books they attack. People are quite contrary and usually do exactly the opposite of what is advised. (which is why we have such dismal stats for social ills).

Audience
Assume that the readers of the Review are serious students of the Book of Mormon and are familiar with its story, characters, and doctrines. However, given the diversity of our readers and the interdisciplinary nature of work on the Book of Mormon, you should not assume that they have an academic background.

I guess this helps explain the lambasting of the FHE game? Since "serious students of the Book of Mormon" (and the Book of Abraham, and the Bible, and the D&C, right?) would be interested in hearing about all of the problems with a family night game?

I think there's something to be said for a publication evolving over the years. I doubt there would be a review of a FHE game today.

Focus
A review essay usually focuses on the book being reviewed, rather than on larger issues in the field that the book covers.

Yes, that *is* usually the case! With FARMS Review, however, readers get the opportunity to learn all sorts of things about authors' characters, such as that Mike Quinn is a "bad historian."

Obviously "larger issues in the field" doesn't include character assassination of the author. Or maybe this signals a change in the weather at FARMS/MI and we can expect a different tone henceforth.

You really need to stop being so cynical and let people grow and change. Nothing starts out perfect, not even FARMS.

Sources
You are required to submit photocopies of your sources along with your essay. This is a condition of publication. For a book, please photocopy the page quoted, the title page, and the copyright page so that the following information is visible: quotation, page of quotation, title of book, author, editor or translator, publisher, place of publication, and publication year. Usually this data is found on the title page, copyright page, and page of the quotation.

(bold emphasis ibid)
[snip unneeded commentary]
It seems to me the reason is obvious: (1) they want to be extra scrupulous, and (2) FARMS authors frequently attack books on the basis of source accuracy. In other words, the FARMS Review editorial staff is looking to cover its butt. This also seems to reflect a kind of hyper, knee-jerk paranoia. Most scholars are willing to give other authors the benefit of doubt, and to assume that people are finagling their sources. The FARMS authors, on the other hand, seem to be anticipating that someone will go after their use of sources, and that they will lose all kinds of credibility, hence this rather excessive "insurance policy."

So you're faulting them for being picky. After faulting them for being not picky enough.

Geez, Scratch. Can they do anything right?

Revisions
The editors of the Review will read your review and may make suggestions aimed at improving clarity, cohesion, and the overall quality and strength of your argument.

Does "strength of your argument" refer to the many character assassinations and ad hominem attacks which appear in the Review?

There's more than one editor of the review? In the end though, it all stops on Daniel's desk, so the end product has to pass Daniel before it gets published.

Some suggestions may aim to make your essay fit better with others to be published in the same issue. We hope that you will consider the suggestions to be friendly and will think through them carefully. We believe that our goal and yours are the same—to help serious students of the Book of Mormon make informed choices and judgments about the books published on the Book of Mormon and to encourage reliable scholarship on this key scripture.

This last bit seems very odd to me. "informed choices and judgements"? Honestly, what are people supposed to think about, say, Tvedtnes's review of Dr. Shades's writings? What about the anti-FHE hit piece, or Hamblin's smearing of Mike Quinn? What about the excessive Grant Palmer articles?

Yet much of what is reviewed is not connected to the Book of Mormon. So how does that help serious students?

[_MAsh]

Something I found rather unusual was this:

Sources
You are required to submit photocopies of your sources along with your essay. This is a condition of publication. For a book, please photocopy the page quoted, the title page, and the copyright page so that the following information is visible: quotation, page of quotation, title of book, author, editor or translator, publisher, place of publication, and publication year. Usually this data is found on the title page, copyright page, and page of the quotation.

(bold emphasis ibid)

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. Usually, graduate students---or other office assistants---are sent out to confirm quotations. So, why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

I honestly don't know if this is standard practice for most academic journals, but it is the accepted practice in book publishing. Check the submission guidelines for Deseret Book or Cedar Fort and you'll find the same thing. I have a project with a publisher right now for which I had to make a metric ton of copies for my sources. In this electronic age, they thankfully accepted scanned copies all compiled on a disk rather than hard copies.

I suspect that most journals require the same thing.

Mike Ash
http://www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

[_harmony]

I honestly don't know if this is standard practice for most academic journals, but it is the accepted practice in book publishing. Check the submission guidelines for Deseret Book or Cedar Fort and you'll find the same thing. I have a project with a publisher right now for which I had to make a metric ton of copies for my sources. In this electronic age, they thankfully accepted scanned copies all compiled on a disk rather than hard copies.

I suspect that most journals require the same thing.

Mike Ash
http://www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

Do you think the submission guidelines that were used for Massacre at Mountain Meadows included copies of the things kept from the general public in the Vault? If so, how do you account for the incomplete quotes that Trixie/beastie points out on her thread?

[_Mister Scratch]

I have to wonder why this is the case. Most journals are not this hardcore in terms of collecting quotation information. Usually, graduate students---or other office assistants---are sent out to confirm quotations. So, why is the FROB asking authors to do all this extensive photocopying?

When I wrote a review for FARMS several years ago, this requirement was indeed a pain in the ass. If I remember correctly, my review was only 10 pages long, but the stack of photocopies I submitted was nearly two inches thick. I agree with you that FARMS' requirement is probably more than other journals require, and is most certainly intended to protect FARMS (and by extension, BYU and the Church) and make sure sources are cited appropriately. Now I mean no offence, Scratch... but I am confused by your negative reaction to this requirement. On one hand, you criticize FARMS of not being scholarly enough (not being peer review, whatever)... and then, when FARMS show themselves to be exceptional in certain areas, you call it "knee jerk paranoia."

That's a fair question, Mike. The thing is, I would not have cause for criticism if FARMS authors weren't so insistent about attacking Quinn, Bagley, and others on the grounds of their footnotes being wrong. Perhaps you can recall Will Schryver embarrassing himself over his over-the-top accusations against Dan Vogel's footnote(s)?

And further, if the Review used a more balanced, fair-minded sort of peer review, would it really be necessary to foist all this photocopying on authors? FARMS, after all, has a budget in the millions of dollars. Why can't it pay Matt Roper or somebody like that to do the copying? I just found this requirement to be very unusual.

[_Tom]

I found this interesting:

Length
Reviews vary in length from about 1500 words to 6000 words. If you need to go below or above that guideline, please discuss that with one of the editors of the Review. In general, use your own judgment regarding suitable length for covering your topic responsibly and thoughtfully without being infinitely thorough.

I had no idea that there were guidelines on length, however loose. Louis Midgley, for example, regularly exceeds 6000 words.