In article <>, (CuriousGeorge613) wrote:

> Here's the problem with the JHR:
> The JHR claims to be a "scholarly journal." However, as anyone in
> academia knows, if the journals you publish your research in aren't
> peer-reviewed, your publications don't count for bubkis.
> So what is peer-reviewing?
> Normally, when one submits his/her research for publication, it is
> peer-reviewed, meaning the board of editors of that journal sends the
> submission to "referees," who evaluate the work for its scholarly
> merit.  The best journals employ referees with differing orientations
> in the field at hand, though, of course, they would all share the same
> area of expertise.  For example, my father, a prominent (though never
> Nobel-nominated) economist, is a referee for the Journal of Forensic
> Economics (I think that's the title). He qualifies for this job since
> he often testifies in personal injury cases and the like. He is also a
> political liberal. The other referees could be of any political
> orientation -- in fact, it is nearly certain, given the proliferation
> of supply-side economics under Reagan and Bush, that there are conservative
> referees also. If the majority of the referees find the work of merit,
> they recommend that the board of editors publish it.
> The JHR does none of this. Instead, the board of editors (or the editor, Mark
> Weber, prominent neo-Nazi) evaluates the work himself, and if it doesn't toe
> the party line of either: 1) There was no Holocaust; or 2) The Jews
> are bad, then it doesn't get published. The JHR isn't peer-reviewed.

Actually, this is not entirely true.  According to Ted O'Keefe, one of the directors of the Institute for Historical Review, the JHR does go through some sort of peer review procedure.

When I was inquiring about the possibility of my submitting to their periodical, I asked Mr. O'Keefe the manner by which his journal was peer reviewed (as I wanted to include their publication on my resume).  His response was as follows:

"Peer review is informal." <>

So obviously there is some sort of peer review procedure.  It is, however, "informal".  Unfortunately, when, unfamiliar as I am with academic terminology, I asked Mr. O'Keefe what was the nature of an informal peer review procedure (as opposed to the procedure described above) he became unusually hostile and refused to continue the discussion.

The full record of my corrospondance with Mr. O'Keefe of the IHR can be found at:

In article <>, Orac <> wrote:

> There really is no such thing as an "informal" peer review process for
> academic journals.

There isn't?  Why I'm shocked and stunned.

> Peer review processes for any reputable academic
> journal are highly formalized, with specific procedures for choosing
> reviewers, scoring reviews, etc. If IHR has an "informal" peer review
> process, then it is not an academic journal.

We must write to Mr. O'Keefe at once an get him to clarify just what he was thinking when he made his reference to an informal peer review procedure. Surely we cannot presume that the director of such a respectable historical association as the Instituite for Historical Review would lie about such a thing!

He must be permitted every opportunity to explain.  Please contact him at and inform him of this grievous misunderstanding!

We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion