Eve worse, it is the opinion of an ECONOMIST. I really doubt that an economist has a firm grasp of how papers are published in the hard sciences. Like I said before, peer review is not perfect but it is the gold standard. Of the scientists I know, I have never seen a worthy paper that was rejected outright by every journal it was submitted to.
I remember reading of a test of peer review in Physics journals (I have the reference at home, can find it later if you'd like), which took a bunch of articles published in mainstream journals by respected physicists. The names of the authors and insitutitions were replaced by made-up people and places, and any part of the article which identified the authors was changed - but the actual scientific content remained the same. Then, the articles were resubmitted to the same journals that ahd originally published them.
Only a couple noticed that this was the same article again, and the overwhelming majority were rejected, with often scathing criticisms from the reviewers. I'm not sure the pattern of peer review is that different in the hard sciences than it is in Economics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that creationist articles have any scientific merit, but a paper submitted by Jebediah A Creationist from the Discovery Institute would be submitted to more critical review than a paper of equivalent merit by John G Famousphysicist from MIT.
™ Version 4.2