"Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review" - you have to laugh

[mr blur]

Despite the centrality of peer review to the development of a scholarly community, very little is known about the biblical basis and Christian conduct of peer review. We find that peer review is rooted in several Christian virtues, such as reflecting Christ, being honest, seeking wisdom, humbly submitting, showing Christian love, correcting error, and being accountable. Given these principles, we recommend that creationists use a double-blind peer review system, wherein the identities of the author and peer reviewers are confidential. Additionally, we recommend that creationist publishers develop a regular public audit of their peer-review process.

Critics of creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) often note that creationist or ID research does not appear in peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Crawford 1982; Scott and Branch 2003; Max 2004; Bottaro et al. 2006). Creationists complain that we are excluded from the peer-reviewed literature (Anderson 2002; Kulikovsky 2008; see also Tipler 2004) and are therefore required to publish in our own peer reviewed-literature (Morris 2003). Critics view creationist peer review as not “real” peer review. For example, recent attempts to launch new creationist peer-reviewed journals have been met with scorn or dismissal (Sparks et al. 2007; Brumfiel 2008).

The irony of this conflict over peer review is that peer review is poorly understood and criticized even in conventional journals. Over the past 25 years, the process of peer review has come under increasing scrutiny, especially in the biomedical community (e.g., Lock 1986; Godlee and Jefferson 2003; Rennie 2002).

<snip>

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/theology-peer-review


(To quote the J-Walk Blog): "Religious freaks pretending to be scientists...
Here's how it works: Somebody writes a paper about a topic he doesn't understand and claims that God did it. The paper is sent to someone else, who agrees with the author. Then it gets published in Answers Research Journal.

[John Gauger]

1. They will turn around once they find that

peer review weeds out bad ideas. Once their bullshit is called by real scientists, they will decide peer review was not such a great idea. Of course, they will cover their retreat by crying "persecution."

[enki23]

2. no no no. their peers won't be weeding out any of their bad ideas

you can pull a few wriggling maggots from a shit pie, but it's still going to be a shit pie.

[LeftishBrit]

3. 'You can't criticize my paper - It was peer-reviewed by JESUS!'

[TZ]

4. "that peer review is poorly understood and criticized even in conventional journals"

:rofl:
Really? Scientists don't know how to submit a paper to a panel for review? Or understand the process? Jeebus creationists are stupid but then of course when all your peers are as stupid as you, of course the process is confusing...
My goodness that might win the all time idiotic comment in my book from cretinists and thats saying something....:dunce: