Is Interpreter a Well-Cited Journal?
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:55 pm
In the midst of waxing rhapsodic about the inherent arrogance in Ayn Rand's worldview, the proprietor of "SeN" paused in his latest blog entry to summarize a passage from a recent "article" from the Mormon Interpreter blog. The article in question is Newell Wright's "“Moving Beyond the Historicity Question, or a Manifesto for Future Book of Mormon Research,” and it was mentioned in another thread by drumdude. But this is the passage the Dr. Peterson cites in his latest blog posting:
Right: of course they don't care about "credentials." (Ha ha ha.)
But let's step back a moment, shall we? I encourage you to mosey on over to Google Scholar and repeat the exercise (or part of it, anyway) that Mr. Wright used for his "research." Go ahead: click on the citations link for any of Interpreter's "articles." Click on another. Notice anything? Yes, that's right: pretty much all of the "publications" that are citing Interpreter's output are other, incestuous Mopologetic venues: Book of Mormon Central; Meridian Magazine; and so forth. I would be willing to bet that a significant number of those citations were made by Daniel Peterson himself. Furthermore, I bet that "Interpreter" has not been cited by a single reputable academic publication--ever. I could be wrong about that, but in its 10+ year existence, I doubt that a single well-regarded scholar has bothered to cite their work in an admiring light. Again: they can feel free to prove me wrong. But I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of these citations (if not all of them) are coming from the same incestuous network of Mopologetic-friendly, hardcore Mormon publications.
So the "apparent impact and reach" of Interpreter is actually laughably small--despite the "SeN" proprietor's rather ridiculous enthusiasm. Perhaps he really believed Wright's data? I mean, you wouldn't expect someone who believes that the Book of Mormon is real history to be gullible, would you?
In any case, asking for donations in light of this is classic mountebank behavior. The whole thing sounds like a Mopologetic version of astroturfing, in fact.
Interesting, no? And indeed, the President of the Interpreter Foundation sees this as not just a cause for celebration, but an opportunity to ask people to fork over money:This privileging of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies does not seem to be warranted by impact on the discipline of Book of Mormon studies, as measured by a citation analysis. Articles in Interpreter are likely to be cited twice as often as articles appearing in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Using Harzing’s Publish or Perish software, I pulled all articles that have citation data from Google Scholar from 2012 to 2018 from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and compared them with articles about the Book of Mormon published in the Interpreter during the same period. Newer articles are cited less frequently than older articles, so I did not include anything newer than 2018. Also, older articles are cited more frequently, as they have been around longer, so I did not look at articles published before 2012.
The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies published 35 articles of all types that were cited at least once during that time period, for a total of 91 citations, or 2.68 citations per article. Interpreter published 69 articles focusing on the Book of Mormon that were cited at least once during that time period, for a total of 391 citations, or an average of 5.75 citations per article — more than double the citation rate of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I believe that the influence of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies will continue to wane, because it is now locked behind a paywall and is not freely available to the three target audiences described at the beginning of Book of Mormon Studies. This same analysis suggests a bright, impactful future for Interpreter. This blindness towards the Interpreter is one example of the authors’ unconscious bias.
DCP wrote:I cite this not to criticize the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies but, rather, to point to the apparent impact and reach of Interpreter. Faithful students of the Book of Mormon who want to publish their work and who want it to reach a wide audience will (increasingly) want to consider submitting it to Interpreter for consideration. I don’t guarantee publication, of course — we have a vigorous system of peer review in place and, anyway, not every submitted manuscript fits our mission even if it’s really well done — but please do think of this as an invitation. We don’t care what academic credentials an author may or may not possess; we care only that submitted manuscripts be solid and of interest.
I also hope that potential donors, learning of the growing reach of the Interpreter Foundation, will want to join with us in this cause.
Right: of course they don't care about "credentials." (Ha ha ha.)
But let's step back a moment, shall we? I encourage you to mosey on over to Google Scholar and repeat the exercise (or part of it, anyway) that Mr. Wright used for his "research." Go ahead: click on the citations link for any of Interpreter's "articles." Click on another. Notice anything? Yes, that's right: pretty much all of the "publications" that are citing Interpreter's output are other, incestuous Mopologetic venues: Book of Mormon Central; Meridian Magazine; and so forth. I would be willing to bet that a significant number of those citations were made by Daniel Peterson himself. Furthermore, I bet that "Interpreter" has not been cited by a single reputable academic publication--ever. I could be wrong about that, but in its 10+ year existence, I doubt that a single well-regarded scholar has bothered to cite their work in an admiring light. Again: they can feel free to prove me wrong. But I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of these citations (if not all of them) are coming from the same incestuous network of Mopologetic-friendly, hardcore Mormon publications.
So the "apparent impact and reach" of Interpreter is actually laughably small--despite the "SeN" proprietor's rather ridiculous enthusiasm. Perhaps he really believed Wright's data? I mean, you wouldn't expect someone who believes that the Book of Mormon is real history to be gullible, would you?
In any case, asking for donations in light of this is classic mountebank behavior. The whole thing sounds like a Mopologetic version of astroturfing, in fact.
I can definitely see Midgley, et al, being vigorous without being rigorous.
