Dr.GH

Try reading my <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/sarfati_on_imai_gh.htm" target="_blank">paper</a> that critically analizes an article written by a well known YEC, J. Sarfati. Or <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_dump_on_aig's_tas_walker.htm" target="_blank">this one</a> that explored the dogma driven errors of a YEC geologist, Tas Walker.

Now, how well do you think they would do if their nonsence were submitted to a reputable scientific journal?

They routinely use out of date literature, which they typically abuse. Their "analysis" is limited by an overwhelming biblical literalism. And worse they commonly lie about data. Their "conclusion" never varies; science is evil, the Bible is infailable.

stryder2112

Exactly! An as Dr. GH noted, it's often quid pro quo. At least it is in my experience. I mean, if I submitt a paper to a particular journal and it's accepted, often times I'll soon receive articles for peer review from the editor for papers on related topics. It's partially quid pro quo, and partially that the editor knows that I do work in the same field as the submitted papers.

Stryder
p.s. edited to add - Dr. GH's list of criteria in peer reviewing a scientific paper is spot on! Most professional societies for different scientific fields suggest their own specific set of criteria, but they're all more or less the same as what Dr. GH wrote.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: stryder2112 ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Christian Peer Review: Is it in the Bible? If "No", toss it out as fallible evidence

Real-World Peer Review: Is the thesis or argument supported by the facts and evidence that is real and demonstrable? If "No", toss it over to Christian Peer Review.

MrDarwin

The editor of every journal usually maintains a stable of reviewers who have already published one or more papers in their field, and who have indicated a willingness to review papers in their field (or closely related fields).

I'm not aware that there is a standardized set of criteria. Every journal will have its own, although the ones Dr. GH lays out are probably pretty close to a consensus. The basic criteria are whether (1) the paper is appropriate for the journal to which it was submitted, (2) the research is sound and supports any conclusions that are made, and (3) the paper is well-written.

I would add that the "materials and methods" section should state explicitly and clearly just what was done, and how. Raw data are often included in an appendix. An explicit outline of methodology is at the heart of the scientific method, as anybody else should be able to come along later and do the same experiments or studies, to test the results and conclusions of the original paper. They might either replicate the original results (thus supporting the conclusions of the original paper, although in some cases interpreting them differently to reach different conclusions), failing to replicate them (which can lead to various conclusions), or coming up with different results entirely (indicating there was a problem with either the original research, or the follow-up research).

MrDarwin

I'm afraid you would have to point to a specific paper. Since journals do not publish lists of the papers they reject, it is up to the person who submitted the paper to make this information available. Have any creationists gone public with a rejected paper, preferably with comments by the editor or reviewers as to why it was rejected?

The majority of creationist articles I have read do not present original research performed by the writer of the article, but rather are interpretations of data collected by somebody else. This alone would disqualify most from publication in most journals.

Albion

I'm just wondering what the "peer-reviewd" creationist magazines are really like. I mean, I suppose the peers of creationists are other creationists, and so if a paper submitted to a creationist journal is sent out to review by other creationists, it's technically a peer-reviewd paper. It just isn't a scientifically peer-reviewed paper. I have a feeling that this disstinction might start becoming important if peer review starts being a major stumbling block for their ambition.

Dr.GH

AiG has already gone that route claiming that Creation ex Nihilo(sp?) is a "peer-reviewd" journal (or that could be Creation by ICR?).

There are different calibers of journals, even among legitimate ones. The basic lack of integrity, and competence that is a hallmark of creationist "research" will continue to exclude it from any real science journals.

I don't see why the creationists would care about being "peer reviewed" because their followers can't tell the difference anyway.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

MortalWombat

Their stubborn refusal to sign a letter swearing allegience to Darwin that all us evolutionist scientists must sign in order to work and get published.

Starboy

It is clearly a case of science envy. Apparently religion, in the minds of many, is loosing its luster. So if you can't beat'm, join'm. They used to be able to use the dictum: If they won't join'm, beat'm. But that is currently not allowed, however there are signs that they are working on that.

Starboy

Albion

I don't suppose the creationsts care one way or another about being peer reviewed, but presenting your results in a peer-reviewed journal or to a conference of your peers is such a vital part of the scientific process that they probably feel they have to produce some semblence of peer review in their own work. Then they can say, with a straight face (if not an honest heart), that their work has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and hope that makes it sound as legitimate a scientific enterprise as a paper in Nature or JGR.