© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
I have been publishing academic articles in the disciplines of English Literature and Marketing for more than 40 years. I have Ph.D.s in English and Marketing. I must say (and I am not always pleased about this) that the Interpreter has by a considerable margin the most onerous review process I have encountered, either as an author or reviewer. It is the only journal in which I have ever had an article go through more than three rounds or review and revision. And the only one in which an article has been rejected after four revision rounds. (I should add that the rejected article improved dramatically as it was redrafted in those revision rounds and was accepted with minimal further revision at another journal after final rejection at the Interpreter.) No other journal I have ever published in required authors to submit copies of cited material. (Again, I am not particularly pleased about that requirement.) So whatever critics may credibly say about the Interpreter, lack of review rigor is not a valid criticism. Let me add kudos to the many volunteers whose many hours of devoted service have been apparent in the review of articles I have submitted to the Interpreter.
Thanks, Allen, for your very clear explanation of Interpreter’s editorial procedures — and for stepping forward to help me out when I was, frankly, underwater. Your article is helpful in several distinct ways, and much appreciated.
I suggest that one might compare and contrast what the Church’s “Answering Gospel Questions” gospel topic teaches, with what Givens’ “Letter to a Doubter” says on the subject of doubt.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/answering-gospel-questions?lang=eng
“Somewhat more surprising is the top article, by Christopher Blythe, that appeared relatively recently, in 2020. And, I could note that the top article has, as of this writing, almost 15% more views than the second- place article.”
Say what???
Also, I completely agree that there is no reason to worry about a lack of non-LDS reviewers in Interpreter. Interpreter doesn’t need to be Dialogue or Journal of Mormon History or even BYU Studies. It doesn’t need to help academics get tenure. It is a venue that allows LDS academics to speak to one another and to the Saints.
I have to admit I was also surprised when I learned what is expected in the review of papers for Interpreter. Much more work than I suspected. It’s been painful to see some authors get frustrated with the challenges of review and take their papers elsewhere, but in most cases it has resulted in a stronger and more useful paper, IMO. Mistakes still occur, but we owe a great deal to the many people willing to help us review and improve papers.
This was a great description of the editorial process. I’ve been engaging in academic publishing for 30 years in the academic study of marketing (I am a business professor by training), and the Interpreter review process was the most brutal I have ever experienced. Godfrey Ellis sent both papers out to seven (seven!) reviewers and five of the seven reviews contained very substantive critiques. This resulted in rebuilding one of the papers from the ground up, but ultimately produced a MUCH better paper, thanks to the review process and the editorial input. Then after acceptance, I had to submit electronic copies of all sources in the footnotes, so they could be independently vetted for accuracy. This does not happen in my home academic discipline. So yes, the review process, though brutal, actually helped immensely, perhaps more so because I am a new Book of Mormon scholar.