Talk:Mormon Studies Review/Archive 1

Is a review journal

Source[1]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, it is not a review journal. First of all, your source is to a newspaper, not really a reliable academic source. Second, it is not a good link, it just goes to the newspaper's local page. Third, the journal's own website says that it publishes "book reviews" and "substantial freestanding essays that made further contributions to the field of Mormon studies". Neither are things that we generally look upon as review articles. If you look through the tables of contents and sample some articles, you find some that represent independent scholarship, the equivalent of original research in a field like this, that is different from summarizing the work done by others. As many academic journals and even newspapers, it has the word "review" in the title, without being a "review journal". --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

u believe it not one but its eds believe it one. Guess we have to request a third wikipedian's opinion. (Along with the Peggy Stack piece, here's an interview with Fluhman: http://www.maxwellinstituteblog.org/seven-questions-for-spencer-fluhman/ )--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in this blog post is it stated that this is a review journal. That a journal has the word "review" in its name and publishes (among others) book reviews does not make it a review journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

New Review's ed said they are to be

modeling the Review in part on Reviews in American History. We’re going to chronicle and assess the field, in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship. It will be a place where scholars and other interested readers can quickly, conveniently find great minds engaging one another about the current and future state of several fields.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion beat reporter:

...Hodges [no relation to Wikipedian] says. The Review will provide an overview and analysis of all the publishing in the field of Mormon studies, whether by a Latter-day Saint or not.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"(G)reat minds engaging one another" sounds like a discussion to me, not a review. But it's a rather trivial point of course, so let it be a "review journal". --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We’re going to chronicle and assess the field, in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship. It will be a place where scholars and other interested readers can quickly, conveniently find great minds engaging one another about the current and future state of several fields.
We're going to chronicle and assess the field [of scholarship about super hero comic books], in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship. It will be a place where scholars and other interested readers can quickly, conveniently find great minds engaging one another about the current and future state of several fields [through submitted reviews of published scholarship about folks-with-special-powers comix, but also through sometimes informed back-and-forth commentary / meta narratives about the current state of this field of the scholarly study of Batman, the Green Lantern, and the like].

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi there. I've taken a look at material in question, and here's what I've come up with: The question presented asks whether Mormon Studies Review is a review journal, but I think it needs to be rephrased. The standard for inclusion of information in the encyclopedia is not whether the information is true, but rather whether it is verifiable using a reliable source. So I propose the following question instead: Does a reliable source say that Mormon Studies Review is a review journal? I don't think there's a credible argument to be made that the SLT article is not a reliable source, so I'm willing to accept it as such. However, that article does not say that MSR is a review journal. Neither does the interview with Fluhman. It may be that MSR is, in fact, a review journal, but to figure it out, I'd have to go through their archives and figure it out, and even then, we'd have some original research problems to deal with. In the absence of a reliable source classifying the journal as a review journal -- or at least saying that it publishes review articles -- I think that claim should be stricken from the article. Until that source is found, I think MSR is probably best described as an "academic journal." If I may, I'd also like to take a moment to address what looks like it could be the underlying cause of the confusion, which is the multiple meanings of the word "review." Review could mean a book review or it could mean an academic review article. But "review journal" only refers to journals with the second kind of review. If the MSR is publishing book reviews, then it is probably not a review journal. If it is publishing review articles that summarize the current state of knowledge on a given topic, then it is probably a review journal. Let me know if I can be of further help. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Bdb484 (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• OR is lnot a matter of grammar, etc. Per the BYU student newspaper, the new version of the journal

  is to help fill a void within the ever-growing field of Mormon studies. The Review will include reviews of books, essays and other scholarly publications related to Mormonism and the field’s growth and development. The first issue of the Review is expected to be available this coming winter ... The executive director of the Maxwell Institue, M. Gerald Bradford, is eager to see the Mormon Studies Review take its place in the field of Mormon studies. ... "I expect it will soon become a major voice in tracking and commenting on developments in the growing area of Mormon studies."[2].

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

... Now the Maxwell Institute is tapping all those resources .... "At this point, the biggest challenge might be trying to keep up with the variety and volume of scholarship about Mormonism." -- The Review will provide an overview and analysis of all the publishing in the field of Mormon studies, whether by a Latter-day Saint or not.--The Salt Lake Tribune[3]

From the WP article on review articles:

Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic. They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results. They come in the form of systematic reviews and literature reviews and are a form of secondary literature. Systematic reviews determine an objective list of criteria, and find all previously published original experimental papers that meet the criteria. They then compare the results presented in these papers. Literature reviews, by contrast, provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications.

Should editors not understand the plain meaning of what the sources say about a subject, this would not render a statement reasonably summarizing this material as a controversial synthesis. Per the essay What SYNTH Is Not:

If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. ... Beware however of using vague concepts defined in one source to interpret statements in another source. Many concepts in social sciences have vague definitions. The same words may denote slightly different things in different sources. In such cases it's better to attribute the varying concepts rather than to make definite statements about the most general concept you can synthesize. See the sorites paradox for an example of slippery slope when using vague concepts. -- SYNTH is not a secondary-school question: ... Normally, however, an ordinary educated layperson can understand the sources adequately. ... SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources: it's about what the writing says, not the grammatical structure of how it says it. ... SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. ... Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SYNTH is a policy and therefore binding, What SYNTH Is Not is just an essay, the opinion of some WP editors. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's no OR to see that the sources describe the upcoming issues of this journal as intending to review the field of MStudies. (Oh and by the way, whereas "SYNTH is not a policy [...it IS] part of a policy: no original research. [Thus, i]f a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research.")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• According to the Maxwell Institute, the journal publishes "reviews of books, essays and other scholarly publications", not exactly the description of a "review journal"... I have changed the lead accordingly. I also have changed the lead to indicate that this journal actually exists, as the previous text suggested that it was intended to exist and be edited by Fluhman, but actually this somehow didn't happen. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Altho a review journal is a journal containing exclusively reviews of published scholarship: viz., books, essays, misc other scholarly pubs - Cf., "[It] is to be model[led] in part on Reviews in American History. We’re going to chronicle and assess the field, in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship." - in response to some WPdians' operation within an understaning of wp:OR some might be characterized as somewhat purist, I'll change the description of the new version of the journal and leave out the wikilink (obv, to "Review journal").--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mystery solved - Tho the 3 sources speak in terms presuming interlocutors think, ah, a review journal, frustrating-to-a-WP contributor, they decline to #!@&$ say the d*mned term. But alas! at long last informed commentary has beached up on the sandbed of my iPod from someone who didn't get the memo they weren't supposed to pronounce the actual technical term. Journal's publisher's announcement had said, "Benjamin E. Park, a PhD candidate in history at the University of Cambridge, will serve as associate editor...." Ben himself LINK:

  There have been an explosion of journals covering the field, to the point that one could say there is more quantity than quality. We have seen an increase in quality books, with many more to come. There are conferences throughout the nation (and lately, to a very limited extent, world), and academic chairs and programs cropping up at prestigious universities. [... ...]

  That’s where the Neal A. Maxwell Institute comes in. In a (sub)field seemingly so decentralized, the Institute is trying to establish a geographic core. This will primarily be through their new journal, The Mormon Studies Review. Aimed, in part, to be a Mormon version of Books and Culture, the annual journal will offer book reviews, review essays, and discipline, methodology, and topical articles that assess recent trends in the many different disciplines that live under the eclectic umbrella of “Mormon studies.” Written for educated lay readers as well as experts, it finds one of the last remaining niches left in the Mormon studies world: a review journal that is a mix between New York Review of Books and an interdisciplinary version of Reviews in American History.

  [[... ...]

  I have the privilege to serve as Associate Editor, and I am genuinely thrilled to participate in such an impressive and important project.

  Phew!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Discussion cont. here: wp:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Is_MoStudies_Review_a_publisher_of_review_articles.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Got its current title in 2013?

Per this commentator's post, the title was current going back to last year (2012), at least?

June 26, 2012
By Ben Huff
Perhaps the main problem with the Mormon Studies Review, which led to this awful explosion in the last couple of weeks, can be crystallized by looking at the titles it has held over the years and thinking for a moment about what they mean.

At first, it was the FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. It then became the FARMS Review of Books, the FARMS Review, and finally, just the Mormon Studies Review, expanding out the “MS” and dropping the “FAR” at the start. That is quite a journey, and expresses a range of personalities whose conflict with one another appears to have finally produced this explosion between Jerry Bradford and Dan Peterson.
The scope changed dramatically from just books dealing with the Book of Mormon at first, to all kinds of stuff related to Mormonism at the end. But those changes in scope were pretty straightforward.

The complicated part is a matter of genre. The Review started as a publication that specifically did book reviews, and ended up as a publication that invites “substantial freestanding essays that make further contributions to the field of Mormon studies.” And my hunch is that Jerry Bradford would want to emphasize these freestanding essays as the core of the publication going forward, even though they are mentioned second, as an “also” in the current description of the journal on the Maxwell site. But see, book reviews are just a very different category from regular scholarly essays. It seems to me the tensions between these two genres, mixed with a blurring of the boundaries by various parties, might explain most of why the Review has come to a point where it finds it impossible to move forward.

Note that the change from an "open" journal of 2012 to the only-review-of-published-scholarship journal as envisioned by its new editors for 2013 came after the above commentary - as described by Peggy Stack (in her Trib piece about the 2013 redirection of the Review: away from old-style quasi-devotional scholarship and toward a review of current scholarship - while presumably keeping respectful toward belief - but w/o accepting "new research," per se).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Apparently the last issue to be the "FARMormonStudies Rev." was this one in 2010.link.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The foll. info is copied from the FARMS WP pg.

| As the journal's purpose broadened over the years, so did the title: Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (1989–1995), FARMS Review of Books (1996–2002), FARMS Review (2003–2010).

I will go ahead and rmv the article's current claim that the present name change happened in 2013.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Per speculation or informed commentary (?) in comment 24 below the above-linked weblog piece:

palerobber on June 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm

the journal already changed its name a year ago to Mormon Studies Review, which would have seemed the natural time to crystallize the distinction between the FARMS-branded, popular material [...] and the purely scholarly material

from what i’ve read it appears this was the time when the new scholarly direction was crystallized, it just took a while for Bradford to determine that Peterson was never going to get on board.

Does BYU care enough about the popular material to support a Review of Books [...] ?

it would seem that BYU has just answered this question: no.

--it seems to be mplied (to my reading, anyway) that BYU wanted the Review to mostly review the field w/o much polemics or over-much privileging a faith-based approach to scholarship since the pub's 2010 name change to its current monicker.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - My having now perused commentary by var. current and former editors, it seems they may well sorta-kinda retroactively call the Peterson journal "FARMS" and the new review journal "MStudies" but I hadn't come across a precise statement from anyone to that effect, so---- --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Found this poster (tho one somewhat antagonistic to the old regime) reading of the same tea leaves:

As we all know by now, the new flagship journal of the Maxwell Institute will be known as, The Mormon Studies Review. It will, reportedly, focus on serious scholarship that has wide-ranging applicability. Whereas the old Review--per its former Editor-in Chief--was devoted mainly to apologetics, and sought to have a wide, "popular" appeal, the new Review seems to be aimed at gaining wider credibility. Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, the new Mormon Studies Review will start over with a completely new numbering system. It will not be, "Vol. 23, No. 1," in other words; it will be "Vol. 1, Issue 1."

Of great interest to students of Mopologetics, though, is the fact that the Review, which was indeed called the Mormon Studies Review for Vol. 23, Issue 1, has now be re-named the FARMS Review. In other words, the entire, "classic-FARMS" corpus of publications, has bee "demoted" back to its original, rather unfortunate name.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we need two articles

This link here [4] is the Maxwell Institutes statement about the Mormon Studies Review. It seems that the Mormon Studies Review is a newly launched publications with enough break from the Foundation for Ancient Scripture and Mormon Studies Review publications that used to exist to constitute an entirely new publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is indeed a clear break. "Classic" library practice would be to treat these as two different journals. Libraries would do this even if the break were less rigorous (for example, if there were just a simple name change, but with the same editors/board). There were of course good reasons for this, as the (hardcopies of) journals were often arranged alphabetically according to title in libraries. When things are done electronically, this is not necessary, of course, and we can do things differently. In the present case, there is a clear continuity (note that the link you give says that the journal was "renamed", not discontinued and another journal created). With other journals the practice has been to combine information on different "versions" of journals into one article. With the appropriate redirects in place, anyone searching for the journal under its former or current name should easily find all info. I would support two articles if this procedure would result in an unwieldy long article. However, as things are, most journal articles are quite short (preciously few sources write about journals - as opposed to writing about articles that appeared in them) and combining the information in a history section makes for a more substantial article. --Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• IMO, Yes!--IF come this Winter the "new" Review's inaugural/maiden issue(/volume?/whatev) number a Roman numeral I.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• We have many articles combining journal versions, even though they re-started at 1. Volume numbering is not all that important: some journals didn't change their names (or only minimally) and still re-started numbering at some point (sometimes as a new "series"). I think that the fact that there is a clear continuity of history and no possibility of having two sizeable articles both argue in favor of combining the different versions into one article. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)