A Word about Editorial Policy at the FARMS Review

[_Daniel Peterson]

Three points, regarding which some here may be confused or misinformed:

1) The editor of the FARMS Review follows a very laissez faire editorial policy. That is to say, he solicits reviews from people who, in his opinion, would have an interesting take on this or that item. (Over the years, I'm told, something on the order of two hundred distinct individuals have written for the Review.) But he does not tell them what to say. For that matter, he also doesn't stipulate length or word count. And he has seldom made or suggested changes beyond the mechanical.

2) There is no policy at the FARMS Review against publishing replies. There is also, it must be said, no policy at the FARMS Review that favors publishing replies. The editor and his associate editors have never made a decision on the subject. In fact, over the entire history of the FARMS Review, only two authors have ever asked for the privilege of responding to a review. (When the first author asked, the editor said that he would think about it. And then that author almost immediately published his response elsewhere and never raised the matter with the editor of the FARMS Review again. Shortly after the second author asked to publish a reply, he called the editor and said "I've reconsidered. Never mind.") That said, at this point the editor is pretty happy with the general format and nature of the Review, and, with one already announced exception, is not particularly inclined to change it.

3) Whether or not the FARMS Review includes replies seems irrelevant to the question of whether or not its editor favors freedom of speech. Presumably, Catholic priests who don't permit Methodists to preach Sunday sermons in their churches are still committed to freedom of speech and of religion, just as Democrats who don't permit Republicans to speak at their national convention are committed to freedom of speech, just as the editors of The Nation are presumably committed to freedom of speech despite their failure to turn their pages over to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and just as those who publish The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics are very likely committed to freedom of speech even if they have never featured the work of any Marxist economists. The Journal of Evolutionary Biology has probably never published anything by a young-earth creationist, but I don't believe that we should conclude from that fact that its editors oppose freedom of speech.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Three points, regarding which some here may be confused or misinformed:

1) The editor of the FARMS Review follows a very laissez faire editorial policy. That is to say, he solicits reviews from people who, in his opinion, would have an interesting take on this or that item.

Well, let's clarify this a bit. How many of these people are you "chummy" with? It's kind of hard to view the Review as being as scholarly as a publication that depends more on submissions from experts, right? Plus, what percentage of the authors were chosen strictly for their expertise (rather than, say, the fact that you know them, and can depend on them to supply sufficiently vicious attack pieces)?

Plus, I've always been curious about the "solicitation" process for things like, say, the nuking of "Fun For Family Night," say, or Greg Smith's novella-length crapping on Rod Meldrum. What did you say when you "solicited" these articles?

(Over the years, I'm told, something on the order of two hundred distinct individuals have written for the Review.) But he does not tell them what to say. For that matter, he also doesn't stipulate length or word count. And he has seldom made or suggested changes beyond the mechanical.

Are you talking only about yourself, or about Dr. Midgley, too? We know, for instance, that Midgley added ideological slams to LoaP's article. It seems the title was adjusted so as to be more mocking, too.

2) There is no policy at the FARMS Review against publishing replies. There is also, it must be said, no policy at the FARMS Review that favors publishing replies. The editor and his associate editors have never made a decision on the subject.

No, why would there be? You've set the publication up as something that is run entirely on the basis of solicited articles. What would happen, I wonder, if you opened this up to general submissions? And I think that Rev. Kishkumen was suggesting something more akin to a "Letters to the Editor" section, rather than "replies" per se. For instance, it would be pretty great is there were a "comments" section at the MI's Web site. I bet there would be tons of interesting commentary if you guys ever developed the gumption to set something like that up.

In fact, over the entire history of the FARMS Review, only two authors have ever asked for the privilege of responding to a review.

What does that suggest? That no one wants to respond? Or that most readers who *would* be interested in responding are under the impression that they'll be censored/squelched/forced to jump through hoops?

That said, at this point the editor is pretty happy with the general format and nature of the Review, and, with one already announced exception, is not particularly inclined to change it.

You guys have been the target of legal action twice.

3) Whether or not the FARMS Review includes replies seems irrelevant to the question of whether or not its editor favors freedom of speech.

Not necessarily. It seems that part of the editorial attitude is about "battening down the hatches" and drawing borders and boundaries. In "Questions to Legal Answers," it was suggested that you guys tried rather rigorously and sneakily to ban Signature books from the BYU bookstore, which does very much smack of a subtle, peculiarly Mormon kind of censorship. (It's like with the old CHI: "It's not secret! All you have to do is get permission from the bishop!")

Presumably, Catholic priests who don't permit Methodists to preach Sunday sermons in their churches are still committed to freedom of speech and of religion, just as Democrats who don't permit Republicans to speak at their national convention are committed to freedom of speech, just as the editors of The Nation are presumably committed to freedom of speech despite their failure to turn their pages over to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and just as those who publish The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics are very likely committed to freedom of speech even if they have never featured the work of any Marxist economists. The Journal of Evolutionary Biology has probably never published anything by a young-earth creationist, but I don't believe that we should conclude from that fact that its editors oppose freedom of speech.

The better comparison is probably with the journals that come out of Scientology.

[_Pahoran]

Malevolent Stalker,

you ranted:

Well, let's clarify this a bit. How many of these people are you "chummy" with? It's kind of hard to view the Review as being as scholarly as a publication that depends more on submissions from experts, right? Plus, what percentage of the authors were chosen strictly for their expertise (rather than, say, the fact that you know them, and can depend on them to supply sufficiently vicious attack pieces)?

You are delusional. The Review does not consist of "vicious attack pieces." Compared to your continuous outpourings of spite, it is positively friendly.

Plus, I've always been curious about the "solicitation" process for things like, say, the nuking of "Fun For Family Night," say, or Greg Smith's novella-length crapping on Rod Meldrum. What did you say when you "solicited" these articles?

You are inordinately "curious" about a great many things that are none of your business, MS. Witness your creepy "dossiers."

Are you talking only about yourself, or about Dr. Midgley, too? We know, for instance, that Midgley added ideological slams to LoaP's article. It seems the title was adjusted so as to be more mocking, too.

And how do "we" pretend to "know" this? Does it come from another of your alters, I mean "informants?"

No, why would there be? You've set the publication up as something that is run entirely on the basis of solicited articles. What would happen, I wonder, if you opened this up to general submissions? And I think that Rev. Kishkumen was suggesting something more akin to a "Letters to the Editor" section, rather than "replies" per se. For instance, it would be pretty great is there were a "comments" section at the MI's Web site. I bet there would be tons of interesting commentary if you guys ever developed the gumption to set something like that up.

Given your creepy and cowardly "dossiers," you really are in no condition to be lecturing anyone else about "gumption."

What does that suggest? That no one wants to respond? Or that most readers who *would* be interested in responding are under the impression that they'll be censored/squelched/forced to jump through hoops?

Exactly why you would expect Professor Peterson to collaborate with your directionless mind-reading is not clear to me. Maybe it suggests that authors don't typically expect a "right of reply" in a review journal.

You guys have been the target of legal action twice.

Failed legal action, and both times in an attempt to censor the Review. Funny how you overlook such details when they don't serve your hate-based agenda.

In "Questions to Legal Answers," it was suggested that you guys tried rather rigorously and sneakily to ban Signature books from the BYU bookstore, which does very much smack of a subtle, peculiarly Mormon kind of censorship.

Call for references, please: where does it say that?

Presumably, Catholic priests who don't permit Methodists to preach Sunday sermons in their churches are still committed to freedom of speech and of religion, just as Democrats who don't permit Republicans to speak at their national convention are committed to freedom of speech, just as the editors of The Nation are presumably committed to freedom of speech despite their failure to turn their pages over to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and just as those who publish The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics are very likely committed to freedom of speech even if they have never featured the work of any Marxist economists. The Journal of Evolutionary Biology has probably never published anything by a young-earth creationist, but I don't believe that we should conclude from that fact that its editors oppose freedom of speech.

The better comparison is probably with the journals that come out of Scientology.

"Better" for the purposes of smearing by assocation; but thank you for admitting that you have no valid counter-argument.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Eric]

<snip>

This entire post should be moved from the Celestial Forum by a moderator.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Some additional points, on which certain people here may be confused or misinformed:

* The FARMS Review is essentially a semi-annual collection of book reviews. The editor of the FARMS Review invites people to review books. This is not unusual. For example, the editor of the FARMS Review has himself written a number of academic book reviews over the years for non-LDS academic journals. With very few exceptions, he has done so at the request of the journals in question. The FARMS Review has published some unsolicited reviews, but only a few of them.

* The editor of the FARMS Review has indeed been sued once because of a book review. That law suit, filed in California by an evangelical countercult activist who had also filed at least three other Mormon-related law suits of which the editor is aware -- including one involving the Utah State Fair and another focused on Main Street Plaza -- was dismissed by the judge "with prejudice." The editor of the FARMS Review cannot, off hand, recall a second law suit, but would be willing to be reminded of one.

* The editor of the FARMS Review has never been involved in any effort to ban the publications of Signature Books or any other publisher from the BYU Bookstore or any other bookstore, and would not support such an effort with regard to any legitimate publisher. (He considers Signature Books a legitimate publisher.)

[_cinepro]

3) Whether or not the FARMS Review includes replies seems irrelevant to the question of whether or not its editor favors freedom of speech. Presumably, Catholic priests who don't permit Methodists to preach Sunday sermons in their churches are still committed to freedom of speech and of religion, just as Democrats who don't permit Republicans to speak at their national convention are committed to freedom of speech, just as the editors of The Nation are presumably committed to freedom of speech despite their failure to turn their pages over to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and just as those who publish The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics are very likely committed to freedom of speech even if they have never featured the work of any Marxist economists. The Journal of Evolutionary Biology has probably never published anything by a young-earth creationist, but I don't believe that we should conclude from that fact that its editors oppose freedom of speech.

I'm not sure when the conversation turned to "freedom of speech", but I don't think the issue needs to be so overwrought.

Just about every venue of "reviews" that I read is greatly improved by their willingness to present responses from the authors (or manufacturers) being reviewed. The process of reviewing entails at least some degree of mind reading and assuming, so giving the reviewee at least a small portion of space in which to explain themselves seems like it could only be a benefit to the readers.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Some additional points, on which certain people here may be confused or misinformed:

* The FARMS Review is essentially a semi-annual collection of book reviews. The editor of the FARMS Review invites people to review books. This is not unusual. For example, the editor of the FARMS Review has himself written a number of academic book reviews over the years for non-LDS academic journals.

Sure. But were you asked on the basis of your expertise, or because you were close friends with the editor(s), and because there was an unspoken understanding that you'd utterly trash the books in question by way of a novella-length article? The similarities between the Review and a legit journal are superficial at best, Dr. Peterson.

With very few exceptions, he has done so at the request of the journals in question. The FARMS Review has published some unsolicited reviews, but only a few of them.

Gee, I wonder why?

* The editor of the FARMS Review has never been involved in any effort to ban the publications of Signature Books or any other publisher from the BYU Bookstore or any other bookstore, and would not support such an effort with regard to any legitimate publisher. (He considers Signature Books a legitimate publisher.)

Maybe so. Your claims here would hold a *lot* more weight if you published the now-infamous "Signature Books Memo," though. (You mention it in "Questions to Legal Answers.")

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure when the conversation turned to "freedom of speech", but I don't think the issue needs to be so overwrought.

Precisely my point.

Just about every venue of "reviews" that I read is greatly improved by their willingness to present responses from the authors (or manufacturers) being reviewed. The process of reviewing entails at least some degree of mind reading and assuming, so giving the reviewee at least a small portion of space in which to explain themselves seems like it could only be a benefit to the readers.

Possibly so. In any event, as I pointed out above, we've never had a policy against publishing responses.

[_Pahoran]

<snip>

This entire post should be moved from the Celestial Forum by a moderator.

You may well be right, Eric.

But if so, then Scratch's rant should probably be removed as well.

But I wouldn't expect you to be even-handed enough to acknowledge that fact

Regards,
Pahoran