Peer Review or BUST??

cavediver hit it on the nose. The purpose of peer review is make sure that the methodologies have the proper controls and that the data presented supports the tentative claims made by the authors. No one expects a reviewer to repeat the experiments to determine if the data in the paper has been fudged. In my own experience, the main reason that most papers are turned down for publication is the lack of data. Reviewers will often return manuscripts asking for additional experiments that will bolster the conclusions after which the paper will be accepted for publication. Very few papers are rejected outright, and very few are accepted as is for publication.Peer review is only the first hurdle that research must overcome. Once a paper is published a scientist is expected to defend these ideas at conferences where possible, and follow up on the paper with further research to bolster the findings. If the conclusions contradict other research then other scientists will attempt to falsify or verify the findings.Unfortunately, many creationists have decided that their work is so weak that it isn't even worth trying to clear the first hurdle. Instead, it is directly communicated to the scientifically ignorant layity (which makes up a vast majority of the populace) as solid science. They avoid the scientific arena altogether. Can't really say that I blame them given the quality of their work, but that is the state of matters.

In order to censor something it has to be submitted for publication first. Creaitonists are not even submitting papers so there is nothing to censor.Creationists are like Rosa Parks, except that they want to claim discrimination without ever stepping foot on the bus. If you want to play the persecution card you actually have to suffer persecution first. This is false. Creationist journals are not reviewed by leading researchers in the field of interest. Even more, reviewers often have to sign statements of faith before being allowed to review papers, and papers can be rejected if the conclusions conflict with creationism. Try to find a single real scientific journal that requires a statement of faith. You won't find one. No one is stopping you, so why don't you? Pick your favorite paper, start a thread, and then defend it from criticism. You know, do what scientists do. You could even invite one the authors to discuss the paper with us.This is an open debate forum. No one is stopping creationists from presenting their evidence. So why doesn't it happen?

First of all, my user name is Taq, with a Q at the end. It is short for Thermos aquaticus, a thermophilic bacteria that contains a heat resistant DNA polymerase that is used for the amplification of DNA in the modern laboratory. Don't worry, lots of people get that wrong.Secondly, I was hoping that you would pick a paper where the author/s actually did the work described in the paper. Meyers did none of work described in that paper. It was a review paper, not an original research paper. I am also hoping that you can pick a paper that tests creationism, not evolution. The entire paper is about evolution, not ID or creationism. Meyers argues against evolution but never offers a single testable hypothesis that can be used to test ID.Of course, it is entirely up to you. These are only suggestions.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide, off-topic banner.

To reboot this topic . . .Peer review is the gold standard in science. It isn't perfect, but it is still the gold standard. If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist you MUST submit your work to peer review and have it published. Creationists are not doing this.It's not even a matter of journals refusing to publish the papers. Creationists are not even SUBMITTING papers for peer review. Instead, they create fake peer review journals where the only peer review is for theologic purity. It's like Arnold Schwarzenegger creating his own awards show and giving himself the Greatest Actor of the Century award. It's a joke. There are plenty of legitimate scientific journals out there, and yet creationists are not submitting papers to these journals.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.

Just once I would like to ninja my way into a creationist convention and ask each presenter "When was the last time you picked up a pipette, used a balance, or used a microscope?" Just once. The expressions on their faces would be golden.What they are trying to do instead of research is discount all of the real hard work done by real scientists. In this respect, it really is anti-science as you state. They already know where science leads. They don't like it. The only option is to make everyone ignore science.

I would be really interested in reading these papers that were rejected. Perhaps there is a reason that they are laughed at?What type of original research was in the paper? What experiments were done? 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. Before you can claim censorship you actually need to have a paper that was censored. If you want to be Rosa Parks, you actually have to get on the bus.

Within the scientific arena, if it isn't published it doesn't exist. That is the gold standard I am talking about. If creationists want to claim that they have studies which falsify current theories then these studies need to be published. Whether they gain a consensus or not is a different matter.

Were they rejected outright or did the reviewers ask for revisions? In my own field, it is very rare for the first submission to be accepted outright. The vast majority of papers are sent back with suggestions for revisions before they are resubmitted, and those suggestions are not consistent across reviewers. I am not suprised at all that new reviewers would send an already published paper back with suggestions for resubmission.Think of it this way. If you took an already published book and submitted it to a new editor you would get a list of suggestions of how to improve the book before it is published.

I am interested.

It is the same way in biology. Scientists spend their careers building a reputation, and that reputation means everything. New investigators lack this reputation, and so they are sometimes put under more scrutiny. However, it is not the same thing as a "Good Ole Boys" network, if you get my drift. Reputations are earned through quality publications.Some may claim that this is not an objective criteria, and they would have a viable argument. However, this has been the tradition for quite some time now, and it seems to work. The fact of the matter is that the referees have no way of checking the results. Referees do not run the experiments described in the paper to make sure the results are repeatable. That is up to other scientists after the paper has been published. Therefore, there is an element of trust involved. If an author is well respected then that author's results are trusted more than others, be it a new author or an author with a bad reputation.This also applies to grant applications. Scientists who have been caught fudging data are often banned from even submitting grants to the NSF or NIH for a period of 2 to 10 years. This is devastating to any lab. Scientists who have had to retract papers for honest mistakes are even looked down on. Reputation is EVERYTHING in the sciences, and I think it is a system worth keeping.