Is the Mormon Interpreter a scholarly journal?

[MormonVideoGame]

Larry Hurtado (New Testament scholar) wrote, "genuinely scholarly claims are submitted for review by other scholars competent to judge matters. This is how real scholarship works, not by rushing into print with some sensational claim (for which the author is scarcely qualified), by-passing scholarly review critique...Peer-reviewed journals are those that send out submitted articles to other scholars in the field for review as to whether to publish them, revise them for publication, or reject them outright. This process now typically is “double-blind”: I.e., the name of the author is removed from the article, and the names of the reviewers are also confidential" 

According to the Center for Public Education, "The writing in peer-reviewed journals is typically technical and academic and hard for the lay person to understand. Furthermore, research journals are usually not free to the public except at libraries" http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Policies/Consumers-guide-to-education-research/Finding-credible-research-QA.html

So "usually not free" means that not all scholarly journals charge you. Someone here knows if the Mormon Interpreter has a double-blind process?  

Edited March 4, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

It includes people attempting to be scholarly rigorous but also essays and the like. I wouldn't consider it a hard core scholarly journal the way say Nature is. It's on par with the old Reviews of Books on The Book of Mormon that FARMS used to publish. Some papers are better than others.

[Robert F. Smith]

Many academic journals and important sources are free online, some are not and require subscriptions.  Nearly all are available at libraries.

One of the best ways to determine whether an individual or group practices genuine scholarship is to submit it to third-party expert review..  Several years ago, a couple of evangelical scholars did just that in spending some time in Utah examining Mormon scholarship firsthand, including face-to-face interviews with Mormon scholars.  The result was Paul Owen & Carl Mosser, “Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series (Fall 1998):179-205; first delivered on April 25, 1997, at the Evangelical Society Far West Annual Meeting. Online at http://www.academia.edu/185247/_Mormon_Scholarship_Apologetics_and_Evangelical_Neglect_Losing_the_Battle_and_Not_Knowing_It_ .

[clarkgoble]

I think that was more Mosser's study of Mormon apologetics than something about peer review. As I recall it was for his thesis. (Although I might be wrong on that)

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Larry Hurtado (New Testament scholar) wrote, "genuinely scholarly claims are submitted for review by other scholars competent to judge matters. This is how real scholarship works, not by rushing into print with some sensational claim (for which the author is scarcely qualified), by-passing scholarly review critique...Peer-reviewed journals are those that send out submitted articles to other scholars in the field for review as to whether to publish them, revise them for publication, or reject them outright. This process now typically is “double-blind”: I.e., the name of the author is removed from the article, and the names of the reviewers are also confidential" 

According to the Center for Public Education, "The writing in peer-reviewed journals is typically technical and academic and hard for the lay person to understand. Furthermore, research journals are usually not free to the public except at libraries" http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Policies/Consumers-guide-to-education-research/Finding-credible-research-QA.html

So "usually not free" means that not all scholarly journals charge you. Someone here knows if the Mormon Interpreter has a double-blind process?  

Note: there are plenty of scholarly journals which are not double-blind.  The reviewers are usually anonymous, but even if you remove the author's name it's obvious who author is from the number of self-citations.  Also, there is an increasing number of scholarly journals which are free for the public to access. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that was more Mosser's study of Mormon apologetics than something about peer review. As I recall it was for his thesis. (Although I might be wrong on that)

Their's was a full-scale assessment of Mormon scholarship, and they were surprised by the results.  Both now have their doctorates.  Peer review is a side issue and not relevant to actual scholarship.  You need to read their article.

[Freedom]

Does Mormon Interpreter claim to be a scholarly journal?

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Larry Hurtado (New Testament scholar) wrote, "genuinely scholarly claims are submitted for review by other scholars competent to judge matters. This is how real scholarship works, not by rushing into print with some sensational claim (for which the author is scarcely qualified), by-passing scholarly review critique...Peer-reviewed journals are those that send out submitted articles to other scholars in the field for review as to whether to publish them, revise them for publication, or reject them outright. This process now typically is “double-blind”: I.e., the name of the author is removed from the article, and the names of the reviewers are also confidential" 

According to the Center for Public Education, "The writing in peer-reviewed journals is typically technical and academic and hard for the lay person to understand. Furthermore, research journals are usually not free to the public except at libraries" http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Policies/Consumers-guide-to-education-research/Finding-credible-research-QA.html

So "usually not free" means that not all scholarly journals charge you. Someone here knows if the Mormon Interpreter has a double-blind process?  

The field is small and specialized with only a few people involved and it seems unlikely a double-blind process would work even if it did have merit in this particular field (which I doubt).

[Darren10]

22 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Larry Hurtado (New Testament scholar) wrote, "genuinely scholarly claims are submitted for review by other scholars competent to judge matters. This is how real scholarship works, not by rushing into print with some sensational claim (for which the author is scarcely qualified), by-passing scholarly review critique...Peer-reviewed journals are those that send out submitted articles to other scholars in the field for review as to whether to publish them, revise them for publication, or reject them outright. This process now typically is “double-blind”: I.e., the name of the author is removed from the article, and the names of the reviewers are also confidential" 

According to the Center for Public Education, "The writing in peer-reviewed journals is typically technical and academic and hard for the lay person to understand. Furthermore, research journals are usually not free to the public except at libraries" http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Policies/Consumers-guide-to-education-research/Finding-credible-research-QA.html

So "usually not free" means that not all scholarly journals charge you. Someone here knows if the Mormon Interpreter has a double-blind process?  

This is from Interpreter's mission statement: 

Quote

The Interpreter Foundation is a nonprofit educational organization focused on the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, early LDS history, and related subjects. All publications in its journal, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, are peer-reviewed and are made available as free internet downloads or through at-cost print-on-demand services. Other posts on the website are not necessarily peer-reviewed, but are approved by Interpreter’s Executive Board.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/mission-statement/

I also just used the contact feature on Mormon Interpreter to ask them if they use a double-blinded peer review process. I'll keep you updated. 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Darren10

[Brant Gardner]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I also just used the contact feature on Mormon Interpreter to ask them if they use a double-blinded peer review process. I'll keep you updated. 

I am not in charge of the reviewing of articles, but I have both submitted papers and reviewed them. For those that I have reviewed, I was requested as a reviewer due to similarity it topic to things that I have experience with. In both cases, I know that reviewers of my papers did not know who submitted the paper, and I am not told who submitted the papers I have reviewed--hence, yes, it is a double-blind review process.

[Darren10]

43 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

I am not in charge of the reviewing of articles, but I have both submitted papers and reviewed them. For those that I have reviewed, I was requested as a reviewer due to similarity it topic to things that I have experience with. In both cases, I know that reviewers of my papers did not know who submitted the paper, and I am not told who submitted the papers I have reviewed--hence, yes, it is a double-blind review process.

Were these for Mormon Interpreter? 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Darren10

[awyatt]

Darren,

I (along with 5 others) received the query you posted at Mormon Interpreter. I'm responding because I'm the person who arranges for, tracks, and conducts the peer-review process for the articles that ultimately appear in Interpreter. There is nobody who knows the process better than me. I employ a single-blind system of review.

We receive quite a few submissions. Some submissions I reject outright; they never make it to the peer-review process for any number of reasons. Of those that do, the majority are reviewed by 2 reviewers, while others are reviewed by more. (I had one paper for which I arranged 5 reviews.) I select reviewers based upon their qualifications in the topic area of the submitted paper. Reviewers do their work concurrently and are not aware if anyone else (or who else) is reviewing a paper. When I receive comments back from all reviewers, their comments are used to determine if the paper is rejected or not. Further, if their comments are positive in the aggregate, I pass the comments on to the author to revise the paper according to the comments received. (Before comments are passed to the author, any identifying information is removed from those comments; that is the nature of a single-blind system.)

It was an active decision on my part to NOT use a double-blind system. I feel this is best summed up by a comment in the executive summary of this paper:

Quote

6. Double-blind review faces some fundamental objections. Double-blind review was primarily supported because of its perceived objectivity and fairness. Many respondents, including some of those supporting double-blind review, did however point out that there were great difficulties in operating it in practice because it was frequently too easy to identify authors from their references, type of work or other internal clues.

Mormon studies is a very, very small portion of the overall academic ocean. Because of this, double-blind is impractical because most reviewers would recognize authors (at least those published previously in Interpreter or in other academic venues) based on their writing style and subject areas regardless of whether their name was removed from the paper or not.

I should point out, as well, that there are a minute number of essays appearing in the Interpreter that are not peer reviewed. For instance, it makes little sense to arrange a peer review for a first-person essay, such as those that may appear around Christmas or Easter. The vast majority of articles, however, are peer reviewed extensively.

-Allen Wyatt

 

[Calm]

Good to see you, Allen.

Calmoriah

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, awyatt said:

Mormon studies is a very, very small portion of the overall academic ocean. 

Robert Smith wrote, "One of the best ways to determine whether an individual or group practices genuine scholarship is to submit it to third-party expert review" 

So why not submit the papers to scholars of that overall academic ocean? Can that happen in the future?  

1 hour ago, awyatt said:

Because of this, double-blind is impractical because most reviewers would recognize authors 

and most reviewers also write papers for the Mormon Interpreter?  

Edited March 5, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, awyatt said:

Darren,

I (along with 5 others) received the query you posted at Mormon Interpreter. I'm responding because I'm the person who arranges for, tracks, and conducts the peer-review process for the articles that ultimately appear in Interpreter. There is nobody who knows the process better than me. I employ a single-blind system of review.

We receive quite a few submissions. Some submissions I reject outright; they never make it to the peer-review process for any number of reasons. Of those that do, the majority are reviewed by 2 reviewers, while others are reviewed by more. (I had one paper for which I arranged 5 reviews.) I select reviewers based upon their qualifications in the topic area of the submitted paper. Reviewers do their work concurrently and are not aware if anyone else (or who else) is reviewing a paper. When I receive comments back from all reviewers, their comments are used to determine if the paper is rejected or not. Further, if their comments are positive in the aggregate, I pass the comments on to the author to revise the paper according to the comments received. (Before comments are passed to the author, any identifying information is removed from those comments; that is the nature of a single-blind system.)

It was an active decision on my part to NOT use a double-blind system. I feel this is best summed up by a comment in the executive summary of this paper:

Mormon studies is a very, very small portion of the overall academic ocean. Because of this, double-blind is impractical because most reviewers would recognize authors (at least those published previously in Interpreter or in other academic venues) based on their writing style and subject areas regardless of whether their name was removed from the paper or not.

I should point out, as well, that there are a minute number of essays appearing in the Interpreter that are not peer reviewed. For instance, it makes little sense to arrange a peer review for a first-person essay, such as those that may appear around Christmas or Easter. The vast majority of articles, however, are peer reviewed extensively.

-Allen Wyatt

 

Thank you for that response. It is interesting to learn some of the inside procedures Mormon Interpreter implaments to get their papers published. 

Quote

Mormon studies is a very, very small portion of the overall academic ocean. Because of this, double-blind is impractical...

Score for The Nehor. I do believe this is exactly what he said to MormonVideo.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

42 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Robert Smith wrote, "One of the best ways to determine whether an individual or group practices genuine scholarship is to submit it to third-party expert review" 

So why not submit the papers to scholars of that overall academic ocean? Can that happen in the future?  

and most reviewers also write papers for the Mormon Interpreter?  

As for you last question, I would say "most likely" but I really do not know for sure. 

Your first question though is most important to anser. In my experience based on interacting with many doubting Mormons and anti-Mormons, it is my understanding that the vast majority of "third party" non-Mormonmembers do not know the text of the Book of Mormon in order to effectively provide an appropriate review. There are, of course, Mormon scholars not involved with Mormon Interpreter so thry may qualify to oeer review a paper submitted ro Mormon Interpreter but I really do not know the internal process involved with them. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Robert Smith wrote, "One of the best ways to determine whether an individual or group practices genuine scholarship is to submit it to third-party expert review" 

So why not submit the papers to scholars of that overall academic ocean? Can that happen in the future?  

and most reviewers also write papers for the Mormon Interpreter?  

Depending on the field, overall academics may not know enough to accurately judge.  It is why specialists are in demand.

I asked my husband about his reviewing experience and the ones that were in his field, if they published multiple times, he could recognize their writing even when doing a blind review.  If not in his field, much less likely.  Often, authors tend to use the same people in their footnotes pretty consistently, I have found, so it is not only the topic and the writing style. If you want experts to review a work, generally that gives you a limited number of people to appeal to...fewer who want to do review work (now that my husband has been published himself quite a bit and gotten tenure, he chooses not to review much anymore, but works on his own book and helping others get published, pushing his students' projects, he likes the up close and personal stuff more).

There are some Interpreter's articles that could have sections that nonLDS experts could review.  Getting them to take time out of their likely heavy academic schedule to review a work they probably view as a hobby without impact on the academic world is going to be difficult from what I have seen in other fields.  If they aren't going to get credit to tenure or pay increases for doing it and they aren't personally interested in the subject that they think it is about (which generally will be the Mormon religion as soon as they see anything linked to it) so as to be willing to devote a significant amount of their time...a good reviewer not only reads an article multiple times, writing commentary, but also checks a significant amount of the footnotes, if not all of them, even if they are familiar with them to be sure it is a valid use of them.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Your first question though is most important to anser. In my experience based on interacting with many doubting Mormons and anti-Mormons, it is my understanding that the vast majority of "third party" non-Mormonmembers do not know the text of the Book of Mormon in order to effectively provide an appropriate review. 

Can't they analyze specific passages such as 1 Nephi 16:34-35?  

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

There are, of course, Mormon scholars not involved with Mormon Interpreter so thry may qualify to oeer review a paper submitted ro Mormon Interpreter but I really do not know the internal process involved with them. 

Yes, but I assume many Mormon scholars don't know much about Mormon studies. Right? 

[MormonVideoGame]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depending on the field, overall academics may not know enough to accurately judge.  It is why specialists are in demand.

We agree

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are some Interpreter's articles that could have sections that nonLDS experts could review.  Getting them to take time out of their likely heavy academic schedule to review a work they probably view as a hobby without impact on the academic world is going to be difficult from what I have seen in other fields.

I understand. Is the Mormon Interpreter at least trying to find nonLDS experts that are willing to review? 

Jeff Lindsay, Neal Rappleye, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, and others ... experts in a field of ancient studies?  

Edited March 6, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

I know that those involved in Interpreter asked some nonLDS scholars when it was appropriate when they were producing FARMS as well as publishing a few nonLDS articles.  I am not involved in Interpreter at all so can't provide anything of value there beyond that tidbit.  FairMormon had some nonLDS volunteers whose hobby was Mormonism helping them in the early years.  We (speaking collectively, many are scholars publishing elsewhere like Brant) are more an organizer for accessibility of info than original researchers and there are other venues for original work and the group is larger with more compartmentalizing of projects, so besides our conferences where we do have on occasion nonLDS present, I am not personally aware of nonLDS involvement beyond those who write in to offer suggestions, but there could very well be some.  I do know some of the scholars expressed a desire that others would be interested and experiences where lack of interest was demonstrated, but secondhand info I don't have permission to share if I could dig up the conversations (much of it was when visiting so no joy there).

Sorry can't be more helpful.  My husband's field is entrepreneurship, so no overlap so he can't be a source for that.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Power has gone out. Don't do phone reading or typing if I can help it. See you when I see you.

[Brant Gardner]

6 hours ago, awyatt said:

Mormon studies is a very, very small portion of the overall academic ocean. Because of this, double-blind is impractical because most reviewers would recognize authors (at least those published previously in Interpreter or in other academic venues) based on their writing style and subject areas regardless of whether their name was removed from the paper or not.

I was once asked to review two different papers at about the same time (not for Interpreter, in this case). I was not given the name of either author, but knew immediately who they were. As Allen has said, it can be a very small group, particularly with sub-specialties inside Mormon Studies. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Were these for Mormon Interpreter? 

Yes.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, awyatt said:

...................................................

Mormon studies is a very, very small portion of the overall academic ocean. Because of this, double-blind is impractical because most reviewers would recognize authors (at least those published previously in Interpreter or in other academic venues) based on their writing style and subject areas regardless of whether their name was removed from the paper or not.

I should point out, as well, that there are a minute number of essays appearing in the Interpreter that are not peer reviewed. For instance, it makes little sense to arrange a peer review for a first-person essay, such as those that may appear around Christmas or Easter. The vast majority of articles, however, are peer reviewed extensively.

......................................................  

My own experience with JBMS, FARMS Review, and its successor Interpreter is that the peer review can be tough, and I almost never know who the reviewers are.  In fact I have had articles rejected.  Some reviewers can be non-Mormon experts of Mormonism -- such as Christopher Smith, Ann Taves, Jan Shipps, and the like.  There is no dearth of expertise out there.

Naturally the InterpreterBlog is not peer reviewed.

[awyatt]

14 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So why not submit the papers to scholars of that overall academic ocean? Can that happen in the future? 

That would not, then, be peer review.

Quote

and most reviewers also write papers for the Mormon Interpreter?  

Some, but not most. They may (but are not required to) write for other publications that publish articles in the Mormon studies niche. Some don't publish in that niche at all. For instance, we have had (and, periodically, continue to have) professional historians, psychologists, chemists, engineers, religion professors, linguists, archaeologists, and folks from many other disciplines do peer review.

-Allen