Talk:Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Expansion on demographics
Does anyone have info on the recent reader survey that Stirling refers to in the article? --Trödel 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
yes. it's in a pdf document linked to by "Survey Tables (Raw Data") at Dialoguejournal.com. What is needed now is for someone (like me, you, or her) to digest that and provide a summary of some demographic and other interesting data. Stirling 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thx for the reference - we need to be careful about summarization as that can be original research but we can report on the facts - Dialogue (or whoever did the report) reports their readers are x. see discussion on OR at Talk:Anti-Mormon near the bottom of the page re Brodie --Trödel 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
TX for the NOR lesson. I think I've complied, but if you feel it needs work, I'm willing. Stirling 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- NP - of course, as you can tell from the discussion at Anti-Mormon, people have different views of what is or is not original research. Be sure to read the policy yourself(WP:NOR) so that you can help us all implement it correctly. I noticed there is also an article that accompanies the survey results. That is even better because it will give statements interpretting the results so that we don't have to - and keeps us clear (IMHO). --Trödel 00:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review process
I have been in contact with people who have been 'peer reviewers' for Dialogue; they say that they were contacted by Dialogue and asked to do reviews. An actual peer review does not work in that manner; editors on the journal's staff do not know the identities of the reviewers. An independent concern conducts the actual review, choosing the 'blind' reviewers. Dialogue has not answered my request of them to define the process they use. I am sure that each source you cited was told that Dialogue was double blind peer reviewed by Dialogue, with no real proof of the same. Duke53 | Talk 05:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is original research --Trödel 18:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I asked them to publish their claim of being 'peer reviewed'; obviously there is a reason why they choose to not do it. Their version of 'peer review' would allow them to publish Mormon propaganda under a false premise. The Salt Lake newspapers just rubberstamped what they were told by the church. Duke53 | Talk 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a reliable source which has an issue with them calling it peer-reviewed, that can be added to the article. Since the sources already provided state that it is peer reviewed, and no reliable evidence has been provided to the contrary, there is no need for further debate or citations. --Lethargy 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- The sources 'cited' do not tell how they came to that conclusion; seems like they are accepting the journal's claim. Their definition of 'double blind' may be that the writer doesn't know who the reviewer is and the reviewer doesn't know who the writer is; hence 'double blind'. In a true double blind peer review the only ones who know those identities are the people at the peer review agency, which is independent of the journal. This journal hasn't replied to my questions about their system, which leads me to believe that there is something amiss. Duke53 | Talk 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a reliable source which has an issue with them calling it peer-reviewed, that can be added to the article. Since the sources already provided state that it is peer reviewed, and no reliable evidence has been provided to the contrary, there is no need for further debate or citations. --Lethargy 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I asked them to publish their claim of being 'peer reviewed'; obviously there is a reason why they choose to not do it. Their version of 'peer review' would allow them to publish Mormon propaganda under a false premise. The Salt Lake newspapers just rubberstamped what they were told by the church. Duke53 | Talk 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article never states that is a double blind peer review, it just says peer review. As stated in the peer review article, there are different styles of peer review. --Lethargy 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Duke53, the [[1] Wikipedia article on peer review]suggests it is normal for journal editors to be aware of the identities of the reviewers. In my experience with legal and sociology publications, that is the common practice. And in fact, if I'm an editor, if I have article commentary from a reviewer, I often would need to know who he or she is in order to give appropriate to weight his/her comments. (I can also see in some circumstances where there would benefits in not knowing who conducted the review). 137.65.145.27
