# How Creationists peer review their academic journals. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 13, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485 "2008-02-13T19:58:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/1 "2008-02-13T19:58:02Z")
[Article here.](http://www.slate.com/id/2184384/entry/2184386/) It’s all so scientific! The good stuff starts on page 2. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/2 "2008-02-13T20:44:35Z")
I expected to find this funny, but mostly it just made me very sad. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/3 "2008-02-13T20:47:19Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Dragwyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dragwyr/32/2855_2.png) [@Dragwyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dragwyr)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/4 "2008-02-13T20:53:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/5 "2008-02-13T23:49:39Z")
Shouldn’t Creationists give God as a reference? After all he knows all the theory and did all the work… ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_in\_second\_hand\_clothing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/9d8465/32.png) [@wolf\_in\_second\_hand\_clothing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_in_second_hand_clothing)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/6 "2008-02-14T00:23:46Z")
Is being “Creationist peer reviewed” like being [“Christian accredited”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Bible_University)? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/7 "2008-02-14T01:00:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/8 "2008-02-14T01:04:31Z")
From page 3: > [@](#): > > Neanderthal has an _h_ I propose we hold a public debate on this issue. Maybe we can get someone from _National Geographic_ to give the anti-_h_ side. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-creationists-peer-review-their-academic-journals/437485/9 "2008-02-14T01:06:25Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] 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. [/QUOTE] TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!