https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14681 Killing Crankery with Bayesian Reasoning: The Kooky & Illogical Postflaviana Review But I'll begin by admitting where I was clearly, flagrantly and undeniably wrong. Carrier's description of his peer review process was here (updated link): I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well. I missed where Carrier said that "Sheffield's own peer reviewers have approved the text", these being anonymous reviewers. So it was what I consider a "standard academic peer review process". Or, much more so than a "pal review" process. In his reply, Carrier supplies a link to a Wiley page with further information on typical review processes for academic books. And here's what it says: There are normally three distinct stages in a book’s life when the services of a peer reviewer may be called upon. The first is in assessing an initial book proposal (and perhaps sample chapter), which may either have arrived on the Commissioning Editor’s desk unsolicited, or be a project the editor was actively looking for. The second instance the peer review process can be used is once a book project has been contracted with the publisher, and the author submits a batch of chapters or even a complete manuscript to be checked. While this is not necessary for most books, it can be invaluable when the author or publisher need specific content checked for accuracy or readability. The final time the peer review process is most frequently employed is after a book has published, which is especially useful when considering improvements that could be made for a potential new edition. The "second instance" is the only pre-publication step that even might involve a careful review of most or all chapters of a book. And Wiley clearly states it is not necessary for most books. That corresponds perfectly to my very limited experience with preparing chapters for academic books: authors simply didn't worry much about the peer review process for most of the content, once the book proposal had been accepted. But as to this "second instance", I was indeed ignorant that it even existed, and I stand corrected. And more importantly, in the case of Carrier's book: considering the highly controversial nature of the contents, it's no small achievement that the book was approved by Sheffield's anonymous reviewers.