Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Journal Watch: How Could They Print/Not Print That?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 6 of 18 (586278)
10-12-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
09-21-2010 12:45 PM


I figured that before I start derailing your thread with my own examples I would address the one you give in the OP.
In terms of whether this was a "bit of relief" and solely an opinion piece, I can't see any reason why a reader should conclude this other than the article's daftness. As Tara Smith's comment pointsout, historical case studies are far from unheard of so I don't see why the editor felt that such a format should be treated as a joke.
Should peer review ... have prevented publication?
Frankly I'm surprised it ever got off the editor's desk. Having said that, a brief google on case studies of fictional characters brought up one for Anakin Skywalker which is equally short, and I would suggest daft, although arguably it has a more substantial body of evidence to discuss.
As to the authors intent; I don't think one has to look for a creationist agenda, as such, but they certainly seem to be coming to the case from a christian viewpoint, i.e. 'our lord Jesus Christ', and possibly a literalist one, although as I say case studies of fictional characters are not unknown.
*ABE*On the Retraction watch blog they have a comment from one of the authors who says that it was originally only supposed to be a piece in the debate section, which seems a bit better, but only a bit.*/ABE*
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 09-21-2010 12:45 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2010 10:55 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 18 (586293)
10-12-2010 11:55 AM


How about a another pretty clear example: BIO-Complexity
I think another pretty clear example where we should almost all be able to agree that the trappings of peer review are being used as a creationist fig leaf is an article recently discussed on Panda's Thumb.
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds. Douglas Axe. BIO-complexity, Vol 2010
Now we know Doug Axe gets published in the proper, real, grown up peer reviewed literature, but this doesn't seem to be one of those times. BIO-complexity seems to essentially be the Biologic istitutes in-house journal. Amongst its editors are Douglas Axe, Michael Behe, David Snoke, Richard Sternberg, Jonathan Wells, and William Dembski, a veritable who's who of ID luminaries.
Their Copy-editor is Ann Gauger, who some of you may remember as the Biologic institute researcher put in the embarassing position of essentially reporting having observed a novel beneficial mutation arising in her lab at the Wistar conference a few years ago.
As it currently stands the only 2 articles ever published in BIO-complexity are Axe's one and one with Ann Gauger as first author and another editorial board member Ralph Seelke as the last author.
To be honest Gauger's paper looks like it could easily have got published in a proper peer reviewed journal somewhere if the article was a bit less pushy and not so keen to make emphatic statements especially in the discussion, with no citation to back them up.
TTFN,
WK

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2010 12:40 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 10 by Omnivorous, posted 10-12-2010 2:11 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024