Plutarch wrote:I like Dr. Quinn's works and routinely rely upon them. However, I do so cautiously as his Power and Magical works did not endure much peer review, at least as the WSJ says. And I have chased down some of his cites involving my own ancestors and found him to be overreaching.
The Wall Street Journal article did not say this. It mentions Robert Newman, dean of humanities at the U. of Utah, saying that the reason the U. did not hire Quinn for a full professor spot was "because [Quinn's] research presentation wasn't strong enough and most of his books weren't published by university presses" (this is my quote of the article; the article does not actually quote Newman). But the article also notes that BYU history prof. Thomas Alexander and U. history prof. James Clayton praised Quinn's scholarship, but agreed with the decision not to hire him because of his excommunicated status, which might not go over well in predominantly-LDS Utah. The article says nothing of "peer review" (I suspect you are assuming that is what Newman meant; even if he did, Newman's statement doesn't jive with the feelings expressed by Alexander and Clayton concerning Quinn's scholarship). Here's the irony noted in the WSJ article: after rejecting Quinn ostensibly for a poor research presentation and lack of university-press books, the U. then downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with an active LDS member. Clearly, the state-runned U. of U. knows on which side its state-funded bread is buttered.