Is the Mormon Interpreter a scholarly journal?

[MormonVideoGame]

On 3/6/2017 at 6:22 AM, awyatt said:

That would not, then, be peer review.

One more question. Does the Interpreter have peer-reviewed papers about Book of Mormon evidences such as "Nahom"? or Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? or Mesoamerican evidences for the Book of Mormon? 

I know the interpreter has "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel", but I am not sure if it is peer-reviewed. 

Please and thank you. 

Edited March 11, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

?

[Calm]

Allen probably did a two time drop by and might not pop in again.  He hasn't posted stuff in years and wasn't too frequent for more.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Allen probably did a two time drop by and might not pop in again.  He hasn't posted stuff in years and wasn't too frequent for more.

Thanks for letting me know. Do you happen to know if the MI has peer-reviewed papers about Book of Mormon evidences such as "Nahom"? or Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? or Mesoamerican evidences for the Book of Mormon? 

[longview]

13 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Thanks for letting me know. Do you happen to know if the MI has peer-reviewed papers about Book of Mormon evidences such as "Nahom"? or Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? or Mesoamerican evidences for the Book of Mormon? 

Ask Daniel Petersen who is the founder of MI (Mormon Interpreter or Maxwell Institute?).

[MormonVideoGame]

On 3/5/2017 at 11:34 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.

Do you know? 

[hope_for_things]

On 3/6/2017 at 0:42 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

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Naturally the InterpreterBlog is not peer reviewed.

Question, are you saying that the non-Mormon experts you list here are involved in reviewing papers for the Interpreter, or have they ever been involved in reviewing publications for the Interpreter in the past, or FARMS Review?  

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Question, are you saying that the non-Mormon experts you list here are involved in reviewing papers for the Interpreter, or have they ever been involved in reviewing publications for the Interpreter in the past, or FARMS Review?  

I do not know most of the reviewers of these various publications, although I myself have done some confidential reviews.  As I said: " 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. "

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Do you know? 

Darren asked Gardner if the reviews he mentioned were for Interpreter.  I said yes.  Do you really imagine that I would say so without personal knowledge of the fact?  You need to track the discussion better, videogame.

[MormonVideoGame]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Darren asked Gardner if the reviews he mentioned were for Interpreter.  I said yes.  Do you really imagine that I would say so without personal knowledge of the fact?  You need to track the discussion better, videogame.

My question 

On 3/11/2017 at 1:44 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

One more question. Does the Interpreter have peer-reviewed papers about Book of Mormon evidences such as "Nahom"? or Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? or Mesoamerican evidences for the Book of Mormon? 

I know the interpreter has "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel", but I am not sure if it is peer-reviewed. 

Please and thank you. 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not know most of the reviewers of these various publications, although I myself have done some confidential reviews.  As I said: " 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. "

I just wondered if any of those names you list, who are respected scholars were actually reviewers for the Interpreter or Farms or FAIR Mormon or any of the apologetic or apologetic leaning venues.  I would be happily surprised if the Interpreter was engaging with these scholars and it would probably persuade me to give the Interpreter a read more frequently.  

My current impression of the Interpreter is that they aren't very objective and that they have a very apologetic bias which makes me suspect that all of reviewers also have this same apologetic bias, which makes these reviews that we're discussing much less valuable if the group dynamic isn't very diverse.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

My question 

Quote

On 3/11/2017 at 2:44 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

One more question. Does the Interpreter have peer-reviewed papers about Book of Mormon evidences such as "Nahom"? or Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? or Mesoamerican evidences for the Book of Mormon? 

I know the interpreter has "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel", but I am not sure if it is peer-reviewed. 

Please and thank you. 

 

You probably ought to direct your question to Interpreter, of which I am not a part.  Unlike you, I judge an article based on its actual content.  Instead you make uninformed apriori judgments.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

Not to state the obvious but peer review doesn't ensure correctness. It's more about avoiding egregious errors and giving feedback to improve the paper. In fields that are not empirical a peer reviewer might strongly disagree with a view and argument yet think it should go through. I can't speak to how the Interpreter does its peer review. I hadn't even realized they did it. But peer review doesn't mean any paper should be taken authoritatively.

[MormonVideoGame]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 But peer review doesn't mean any paper should be taken authoritatively.

No, but it is the best way to be up-to-date. If you know a better process let me know. 

Papers in Respected Journals like Nature rarely have significant flaws.  

Edited March 14, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 But peer review doesn't mean any paper should be taken authoritatively.

so what is the layperson suppose to do? all he can do is read good research published in reputable journals, or the summary if he can't understand it. 

The idea that there are no authorities in science only applies to scientists. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

Respected top journals like Science and Nature are so prestigious that they get to select the cream of the crop. That's somewhat separate from the issue of peer review. Likewise as I mentioned in the hard empirical sciences there's a certain definite level of correctness. Move to the softer sciences like psychology, sociology or economics and even well regarded papers in top journals are less likely to be correct. 

[awyatt]

On 3/11/2017 at 2:44 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

One more question. Does the Interpreter have peer-reviewed papers about Book of Mormon evidences such as "Nahom"? or Hebraism in the Book of Mormon? or Mesoamerican evidences for the Book of Mormon? 

I know the interpreter has "Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel", but I am not sure if it is peer-reviewed. 

Please and thank you. 

MVG: Sorry to have been so long in getting back to you. In a later comment on this thread, Calm was correct -- I don't frequent the board much any more. I came back to check something, and found your question, which I can easily respond to.

As I mentioned papers which are published in Interpreter are peer reviewed. Thus, you can do a search for your desired topic on the website (the search box is near the upper-right corner of the page) and find articles (again, peer reviewed) that contain or reference whatever it is you search. For instances, I typed in "nahom" (without the quotes) and found a number of articles that may interest you.

Hope that helps.

-Allen

[MormonVideoGame]

16 hours ago, awyatt said:

MVG: Sorry to have been so long in getting back to you. In a later comment on this thread, Calm was correct -- I don't frequent the board much any more. I came back to check something, and found your question, which I can easily respond to.

As I mentioned papers which are published in Interpreter are peer reviewed. Thus, you can do a search for your desired topic on the website (the search box is near the upper-right corner of the page) and find articles (again, peer reviewed) that contain or reference whatever it is you search. For instances, I typed in "nahom" (without the quotes) and found a number of articles that may interest you.

Hope that helps.

-Allen

Okay. Thanks. 

[why me]

On 4.3.2017 at 8:50 PM, 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?  

Scholarly journals can be ranked according to their impact. The rating goes from 1 to 3. I am not sure if the journal in question is a ranked journal. If not, it may not be considered scholarly or academic. Some articles in journals can be difficult to understand because the writiers wish to impress their peers. But many journals also publish articles that are more easy to understand. Having a double blind process does not insure a rank. Academics usually do not want their article published in a journal that has no ranking since their university does not inlcude journals that have a zero ranking when it comes to a raise or keeping one's job.

Edited April 18, 2017 by why me

[why me]

On 14.3.2017 at 5:59 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

so what is the layperson suppose to do? all he can do is read good research published in reputable journals, or the summary if he can't understand it. 

The idea that there are no authorities in science only applies to scientists. 

At the moment we have a problem. Academics are forced to publsih and thus, the level of research has suffered. One needs to get published for raises and keeping the job. Much research is published online in ranked journals. But very few people read articles these days. Much too many.

[Mormons Talk]

On 3/4/2017 at 1:50 PM, 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?  

I think there's a distinction between "scholarly" and "academic."  Scholarly discourse can be produced outside the academy mimicking their methods; academic discourse is restricted to those who are members of the academic guild.