pangloss

I agree with most of what has been said.
In some instances, authors may be asked to suggest reviewers, especially if the submission is especially 'specialized'. May sound a bit unethical - you don't want to have buddies review each others' papers - but in my experience, 'buddies' are often far more critical than anonymous reviewers might be. Of course, even if your suggestions are taken, you may still not know who the reviewer is.

Also, from my experience, it seems that editors look for a reviewer that can comment on the techniques involved, and another than can comment on the results and conclusions. For example, in one of my phylogenetics submissions, I later discobvered that there had been two reviewers - one of whom studied birds and so reviewed it for technical issues, and the other that also studied primates.

Again, as others have mentioned, I'm sure it varies from journal to journal.

That being said, I would comment that, as others have mentioned, peer review seems to have a different meaning in creation "journals", wherein peer review seems to mean "other creationists." The same is true for "Origins and Design," the "ID" journal (which does not appear to have put out an issue in over a year, such is the level of ID research!). I was once told that O&D was THE ID peer-reviwed journal...
Same thing goes for it - 'peers' apparently means fellow IDists, qualifications be damned.

The reviewing done for these rags seems to be to make sure they prop up the cause, and the accuracy, plausability,and logic of the content is secondary.

pangloss

Indeed. Like those glowing dust jacket endorsements of the latest anti-evolution book that comes out. Behe's book has glowing reviews by Dembski, Johnson, etc. Johnson's latest has blurbs from Dembski, Behe, etc. Dembski's latest form Johnson, Behe, etc.

And yet each of them brags about the 'glowing' reviews they get. How idiotic...

Coragyps

As they say, incest is best kept in the family....

MrDarwin

Coming from the biological sciences, specifically the field of botany:

Yes.

Yes. Editors generally try to match up papers with somebody who specializes in, or at least is familiar with, the subject matter and/or methodology of the submitted paper. In my experience, the editor will usually contact the reviewer first, asking if he or she is willing to review a particular paper. Also, in most cases the editor will give it to more than one reviewer.

No, unless the reviewer volunteers the information. But it's often not difficult to figure out because it's a small enough field and the journals usually publish a list of their reviewers to thank them for their services. Sometimes you can even recognize the person's handwriting (if they return your paper with handwritten comments).

I don't really understand the question. But I have seen cases where an author has specifically asked that their paper not be given to a particular reviewer, who they think may be biased, may give an unfavorable review, or is working on a competing research project.

I would also add that researchers will often personally give their paper to a colleague to review, either before formally submitting it for publication, or at the same time as submitting it.

Jimmy Higgins

Well that is informative. I ask because I'd like to see how to go at creationist "journals".

So unfortunately, there is no way to check how "legitimate" a journal is because the review process is somewhat secretive.

So I guess the only way to know if any research is truly acceptable is to base it on how many people refer to it after its published. Would this be a fair conclusion?

Wounded King

The process isnt secretive, most journals will have details of their peer review process somewhere on their web site. No one has said that the process is secretive only variable, certain details vary from journal to journal. If you mean that the process has some provisions for anonymity then that is fair enough, but it is not the same as being secretive.

MrDarwin

How are you defining "acceptable"? The most acceptable research is that which has been tested by other researchers and found to be sound. In practice, there aren't enough scientists to go around, and for this reason the "materials and methods" section of a paper is considered both necessary and sufficient to determine whether the research is sound.

The purpose of peer review is not to weed out any papers that present unusual results or that threaten the status quo (although those that do had better have some pretty solid evidence!). The purpose of peer review is to determine whether the paper is well-written, contributes something of scientific value, whether the authors have explicitly outlined their materials and methods, whether the methodology is sound, and whether the conclusions they draw are justified by their results.

For most scientists, there are few things as exciting as research that does overturn the status quo, that presents ideas that nobody else has ever thought of, that makes them stop and think, "now wait a minute, if this research is right, does it have any bearing on my own ideas and work?"

Wounded King

The number of citations is more indicative of how important the paper is. You could have a perfectly solid bit of research which was never cited once because it was in an unpopular field.

Peez

It is worth noting that, after a paper has been rejected by a journal (not at all uncommon), one can submit it to another, and another. Each journal has a different focus, and some are more popular/demanding than others, so even if a paper is relatively poor it can probably get published sooner or later if it has any scientific value.

Peez