Peer Review

The Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet

History IX

[Post fifteen of thirty]

Despite the brouhaha about his Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet press conference, Stripling pressed on.

The next step was to compile the data — archaeological, digital, photographic, and epigraphic. They would then submit a paper to a peer-reviewed journal.

Note

This is the fifteenth post of my memorandum on the Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet. It is also the ninth of ten detailing the history of the table and the proposed Joshua’s Altar.

If you have accessed this post from other than captivatingtwists.com and wish to start the journey from the beginning, click here.

Otherwise, continue below.

Which journal did Stripling petition?

He chose Heritage Science. Why? He wanted one esteemed especially by the scientific community. The interpretation of this find required complex computer and tomographic analysis. Also, it required archaeological and epigraphic expertise. A respected scientific journal, he felt, was most appropriate.1

After Stripling’s team submitted their completed paper, the journal approached three specialists. These it determined to have appropriate backgrounds to test the material.

The three then assessed the presentation’s credibility and identified where it needed strengthening. They then drafted questions, etc.

Stripling welcomed the reviewers’ initial verdicts and questions.

Two of these gave glowing approval. The other reflected considerable disdain and, in fact, suggested possible criminality.

All three, however, praised the quality of the writing and scholarship. They all had many questions. Seventy-two requests for modifications or clarifications followed.

To these, Stripling and his team responded.

Afterwards, the glowing remarks from the two favorable reviewers continued. They recommended that the journal publish the edited paper.

After receiving the Stripling team’s responses, the dissenting panel member’s negativity softened. Likely this resulted from legal clarifications by relevant authorities–Palestinian and Israeli. He or she recommended the paper’s publication. 1

(Note that Heritage Science has not released the names of the peer reviewers.)

The journal decided to publish the Stripling team’s article.

That publication I will soon examine.

In the next post, however, I will put the events of these days into perspective. Following that, I will return to Stripling’s article.

Here is a question. Many archaeologist claim that their primary goal is not excavation, but publication. Why might they say this?

Let me know below in “comments”.

Thank you for engaging with this topic thus far!

The next post, the tenth of our review of the Curse Tablet’s history, I entitle: “Troubled Waters”.

I look forward to continuing with you there.

If you appreciate this type of analysis, please “subscribe”, “like”, and “share”.

To support this work, you can donate below. If so, thank you for the encouragement.

Next post: “Troubled Waters“