Here is the first of my two ETS papers, “The Name Theology in Israelite Religion.” Hope you find it interesting. I think it’s a good succinct summary of the history of the discussion. Of course I throw my own two cents in toward the end.
The second paper on the question of the alleged evolution of Israelite monotheism is in a separate post.
Here’s a question about peer-review, revealing my relative ignorance of academia: you present a paper at a conference. What part is this in the process of peer-review, and what is the ultimate result? A published paper in a journal, etc., or something else?
I suppose an alternate query is: why publish peer-review, instead of simply straight publishing something? (Mind you, I’m not questioning this, just asking for the sake of learning and gaining information.) Thanks.
your first paper at a conference (usually) has to be submitted before approval (it is reviewed by a committee). Thereafter that is skipped, but the proposal (an abstract) always has to be approved. The real peer review at a conference setting comes from the audience in terms of immediate feedback (or private feedback after the session). Articles in scholarly journals are subject to blind peer review. Usually your submitted article is reviewed by three experts in the field without revealing their identity to you, or their identities to each other. You get a yes, a no, or “yes, but address XYZ” response. Rejections might be because of poor quality, lack of space, the subject doesn’t interest the editorial staff, etc. They tell you why if rejected, but you never know who reviewed it. Assigning reviews is the task of the editor or asst editors. They funnel articles to area experts for review.
I want to have peer review publications because that’s what scholars do, so that “normal” people who read my stuff know I’m not nuts (i.e., it is viewed as good scholarship by other scholars), etc.