It’s all so scientific! The good stuff starts on page 2.
I expected to find this funny, but mostly it just made me very sad.
As a (non-Creationist) research scientist I can assure you that it’s not unusual for journals to ask for a number of recommended reviewers (particularly for journals which cover a broad range of subjects, where the editors may not know offhand who the acknowledged experts are for every discipline), as well as a list of persons who the authors do not want to be reviewers; it is of course the editor’s decision as to whether these suggestions will be followed or ignored.
I’m more concerned with the anonymity option, since it seems to erode the principles of accountability and responsibility for research.
JRB
So the creationists could not submit anything to the scientific journals for peer review (because they knew it would never get taken seriously) so they created a “scientific journal” for themselves to do peer review. Now they can say their work is peer reviewed and accepted by the “scientific community”, but they won’t mention that it is their own special version of scientific community and nobody else that does it.
It was only a matter of time.
Shouldn’t Creationists give God as a reference?
After all he knows all the theory and did all the work…
Is being “Creationist peer reviewed” like being “Christian accredited”?
The bad part is that in databases such as Academic Search Premier or ProQuest or whatever, these will still show up as “scholarly/peer reviewed” articles because they allow the periodicals to self-identify.
Another favorite publishing place for lunatics is the journal Adolescence. Their own peer review process is “does the check clear?” since they’re essentially a vanity press, plus signing a statement saying “this has been peer reviewed” when you submit it. Paul Cameron, famous for his “average life expectancy for gays is 19” and “children of gay foster parents 1294 times more likely to be sexually molested and or murdered” studies, publishes in Adolescence and other such “lyin’ for the Lord” periodicals.
From page 3:
I propose we hold a public debate on this issue. Maybe we can get someone from National Geographic to give the anti-h side.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!