Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?

You have pretty much got it right.
As an author of a number of papers myself (and an editor), I can tell you that the process, in my discpline at least, is pretty fair.As an author, you end up feeling unfairly treated or criticized by some reviewers, but you often have a chance to demonstrate to the referee that they are wrong or laboring under a false assumption. A biased editor is a much bigger problem. My advice? Submit to a different journal.As to the 'comspiracy of scientists' allegation alluded to by Tusko, it is just not a tenable concept. It seems quite tenable to many of those commited to theistic creationist beliefs, though, because they themselves are often part of *real* conspiracy of non-scientist religious fanatics to discredit evolutionary theory any way they can in order to support their precarious belief structure.

You have a good point.
Your challenge is to get them to step forward and "engage with science".
A dismissive attitude will be alienating.However, it is a difficult challenge, because so many creationists seem unwilling to play by the rules of science, let alone engage it. Most don't exact the requirement for some sort of physical evidence before believing in something in the first place.If they believe in a God and creation without any physical supporting evidence, why shouldn't they believe in a conspiracy theory against them without any evidence?You'll note that you haven't had any of them step up to the plate yet on this thread, but I'll have to check back later in case any do