No publications = no science. That's how it works. Creationists know this. It is morally wrong for them to claim that creationism is supported by scientific evidence when they have no peer reviewed publications to back them up.
The "fundamental" problem which prevents creationists from being accepted to peer-reviewed journals is that creationists are not only not doing science, but they are anti-science.
One example:
Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith (Source)
(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
- The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
- The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
- The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
- The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
- The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
- The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
- Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man's sin.
At least one of these creationist organizations requires their statement of faith to be signed by each member on an annual basis.
Given this, what manner of science do you think these organizations and their members are doing?
It is no wonder that they neither submit to scientific peer review nor would their papers be accepted if they were submitted reflecting the above anti-science approach.
They have nothing to complain about.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2