Peer Review Conspiracy

Well, there's this: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?:

quote:

---

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had 'a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.' Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, 'It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.' This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent 'the range of opinions received.' e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones. ...

​

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

---

Now, that's obviously got some spin; "not likely to publish creationist letters" is reasonable for a science journal, since most if not all creationist letters have nothing to do with science. And the claim that "Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions", implying that Humphreys was rejected without considering the merits of his article, needs a lot of support before I'd believe it. But I've never been able to find any more evidence on this matter.