While I definitely have some issues with the material likely to be published in this particular journal (and I have issues with material published in quite a few other journals, including some kinds of sociology, comparative religion, philosophy, literary theory, etc) I would like to make sure it doesn't get _undeserved_ mockery.

Thus, I must reveal to all you in the public that MANY if not most scientific journals ask authors to recommend reviewers. Of course, they all reserve the right to choose which reviewers they will ultimately ask to do the review; but the journals that are least rigorous usually keep a panel of house reviewers to do all the reviews - better journals ask real experts, usually suggested by the authors themselves - and only the best, a relative few, can afford to do enough prior research to find the experts on their own and then convince those experts to do the reviews.

So actually, ARJ is following the accepted practice for mid-level peer reviewed journals, which would include any as specialized as it is.

The anonymous authorship is naturally a bit strange - most scientists are chomping at the bit to get papers they can claim. But one should really wonder whether 'publish or perish' yields the best results? Wouldn't the papers be more reliable if they were all anonymous and peer reviewed? Then you wouldn't have the pressure to publish the paper - you would only publish results you really believed in, one would expect - and peer review wouldn't necessarily be tainted by the publication of nonsense coming from an otherwise respectable lab. Not that this happens too often, frankly, but it can happen. You'd think that anonymity would lead to production of garbage, an a loss of responsibility and accountability, but many young researchers would rather have authorship on something marginal that they could later find out was flawed (and publish about again) than not have any papers at all.

Absolutely. Many journals ask for suggested reviewers.

Some even ask for names of reviewers that the author does not want to review the paper. I suspect this particular journal has not asked for such a list only because it would be much too long.

BenK wrote: "I would like to make sure it doesn't get _undeserved_ mockery."

BenK, are you out of your mind? I think I remember you from a discussion years ago, and you in fact seem to be a very reasonable fellow with the credentials you claim to have.

Yes, a lot of journals ask for reviewer suggestions. But this one wants only creationist reviewers ...and any paper not supporting the "Creation and Flood model" will be rejected. In other words, this journal selects papers supportive of a particular desired model, even though this model is fringe science at best and there are alternative, widely accepted explanations.

This cherrypicking of papers for a desired outcome is without parallel. I understand your skepticism about papers in "some kinds of sociology, comparative religion, philosophy, literary theory", but these may be fields where there are currently no major alternative approaches. This "peer reviewed journal" cannot bemocked enough, although in fairness, it should be for the right reasons.

"... it doesn't get _undeserved_ mockery."

I appreciate this sentiment and the points you raise, but maybe we can agree that this move by Answers in Genesis _does_ deserve mockery. The creation of this journal fits into a larger context of cynical moves made by the creationist community to acquire the trappings of real science so as to be taken more seriously by an uninformed public. First they tried the direct approach: simply attempting to insert young-earth creationism into public school science curriculae. These attempts were repeatedly struck down by the courts, and they began to realize that in order to get into the science classroom, they would need to cloak their dogma in the language of "real science," which meant finding some like-minded people with Ph.D.'s (in any subject area), forming a research institute, and creating a peer-reviewed journal. In effect, this journal exists to provide bogus credentials to information that has failed consistently to be accepted by anyone in the mainstream scientific community so that it may ultimately be slipped into public science education.

In another thread, you mention the example of plate tectonics, which was also widely derided by the scientific community in its early stages. The difference is that in a matter of, say, 40 years, it eventually gained mainstream acceptance because its proponents were able to meticulously collect data and perform experiments that passed muster with the scientific community at large. Creationism/ID/Whatever you want to call it this month has been around in various guises for at least as long as plate tectonics, yet it has not generated any significant research, nor even a single testable hypothesis. This is due to the fact that most of its adherents spend their time generating PR rather than actual research. The fact that this journal urges potential contributors to ask themselves if their research "is formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework" is why this journal is worthy of mockery. It would be like an astronomy journal requesting that contributors ask themselves if their research is formulated "within a geocentric-ptolemaic framework." Nonetheless, I wish them all the best with this endeavor. I think the results of this effort will speak for themselves; the quality of scholarship will be low and the research will continue to be ignored by anyone except people within the creationist movement.

BenK:

Thus, I must reveal to all you in the public that MANY if not most scientific journals ask authors to recommend reviewers. Of course, they all reserve the right to choose which reviewers they will ultimately ask to do the review; but the journals that are least rigorous usually keep a panel of house reviewers to do all the reviews - better journals ask real experts, usually suggested by the authors themselves - and only the best, a relative few, can afford to do enough prior research to find the experts on their own and then convince those experts to do the reviews.

So actually, ARJ is following the accepted practice for mid-level peer reviewed journals, which would include any as specialized as it is.

It's crazy for Slate to imply that the invitation for authors to suggest referees to the editor is somehow beyond the pale or even unusual. Here's a quote from the web site for the journals of the American Physical Society (quite well-regarded) (<link>):

"Can I Suggest Individuals to Review My Paper?

"You most certainly can! In fact, it helps the editors if you suggest knowledgeable individuals. However, generally, the editors will not select people who are at the same institution as one of the authors; who have collaborated with the authors; who are currently reviewing another manuscript or have reviewed one very recently; or who have been overworked recently as a referee for APS journals."

The anonymous authorship thing is what I thought was strange, although your points are well taken.

traugott:

BenK wrote: "I would like to make sure it doesn't get _undeserved_ mockery."

BenK, are you out of your mind? I think I remember you from a discussion years ago, and you in fact seem to be a very reasonable fellow with the credentials you claim to have.

I don't think BenK meant to say that the journal did not deserve mockery, just that it did not deserve mockery on the basis of allowing authors to suggest reviewers, and perhaps also on the basis of permitting anonymous authorship.

Yes, you are right. I think that any journal that really will simply reject out of hand a paper that comes to the 'wrong conclusion' deserves mockery on that basis. That they want papers on a particular topic - fair enough. Most journals do that. Perhaps even a suggested approach - lots of journals do that! How about a journal on experimental organic synthesis - they dictate the approach. The anonymity issue is troubling, but maybe not because this journal is the problem; maybe there are legitimate times and places when anonymity is necessary to scholarship.

Finally, the selection of reviewers isn't at all a reason for mockery, or if so, we should mock most journals - and that was the main thrust of my original point.

Sure. But in the grand scheme, I think it's an unimportant issue. The major problem is: this is a "scientific journal" that cherrypicks result. An unrelated example: there were few (maybe there still are) scientists (some with excellent credentials) who believed that the HI Virus does not cause AIDS by itself. Did they found a Journal where all submissions"have to support the thesis that AIDS is not by itself caused by HIV"? No, to my knowledge, they tried it the decent way of normal peer reviewed articles and lectures. And that's what the intelligent design people should do. The literal bible creationists should go to church, avoid shrimp and menstruating females, and wonder how toresolve the problem of incorrect additions in the bible.

Amusingly, within the scope of relativity, we _now_ could create a geocentric model of the universe. It would be pretty strange, because it would involve moving the big things and holding the little things constant, and the math would probably seem unnecessarily difficult... but in reality it would be a sort of polar transform from standard classical dynamics. I could see someone with a bizarre sense of humor creating a journal about it, and it might actually assist people who make, say, planetariums.

Anyway, that's an aside. I agree with much of what you say, except to say that geologists who liked plate tectonics had to basically leave the field, work underfunded and almost underground, to get enough muscle to re-enter the field later.

And I agree - the essence of the problem is that they don't spend their time doing science and making discoveries that support their point of view; instead, there are lots of PR moves. However, to their defense, it would be hard to get anything done without some political support, funding, friendly institutes and such. I see this as another move to create a parallel science establishment that operates under their own ground rules, both to create a sort of 'phony credential' system, but also to provide support for the sort of research that might actually make some headway. After all, the question they generally ask in ID is a huge question, and if there were any way to answer it positive or negative, it could take tons of research just to find the approach, let alone ask the question. =/

Yes, I think the most interesting possible outcome would be that, in attempting to create a parallel scientific establishment, they actually wind up producing real science. That's why I have no real problem with this move, as opposed to the attempts to get into the schools. I think the enterprise is doomed from the outset though, since actual science proceeds from the question "How does the universe work?," whereas AiG is proceeding from the question "I have a list of indisputable facts about the universe that I found in the Bible, how can I generate some plausible-sounding data to prove these facts?"

Dear Fraysters--

To clarify my post I quote from another portion of the document discussing the selection of reviewers. "Competent creationists are to be sought. Though not required, each editor may get non-creationist criticism on each paper ... but caution and discernment should be exercised." Thanks for the lively discussion, Bonnie Goldstein

Personally, I don't see AIG producing any interesting stuff in and of itself - but the rest of the ID establishment (and by now they are an establishment of sorts) may be more profitable and interesting, depending on where they go with things. Already they have stimulated all sorts of research into the bacterial flagella and type III secretion system. Some of it is just ideological hackery from evolutionists, but quite a bit of it is interesting, insightful, evolutionary biology.

I think the whole school thing really revolves around a few key issues people have mostly missed so far; they include the fact that evolution has almost universally been poorly taught in schools; that it was used as a cudgel to attack people's culture and religion - the teachers who taught it were outsiders to these groups and the parents naturally feel threatened; that it was a move to make biology teachers feel self-important, like their field redefines the meaning of life, and that they rarely stuck to teaching the facts as they were known.

In all of this, some teachers really prompted, asked for, a counter attack. They angered people, made the public schools seem like mandatory reeducation camps (and in some cases, they have been a sort of reeducation camp in practice), and claimed that their position was unassailable in a dogmatic, religious way. They promptly got assailed, and in many cases, found out the hard way that they had bit the hand that fed them.

So I don't even oppose ID in the schools. Students are smart enough that they will figure out what they want to believe - the ones that aren't that smart aren't going to be doing much with the theory of evolution anyway, no matter how you try to teach them. I rather wish that the teachers had stuck to the facts of evolution as we know them, though, and taught it well.

C'mon Ben. I agree that the article does disservice to presenting how science actually works (little surprise here given that it is Slate) - but there is no mystery as to why annonymous submissions are accepted. What is going on is that some of these submissions are coming from individuals who are supposed to use scientific method (ie null hypothesis proof) in their daily work. For them to abandon such an approach simply because of their faith DOES legitimately raise questions about their willingness to properly apply scientific methods in their daily jobs.

Essentially it is the quintessence of lacking the courage of one's convictions. It is Peter run amok.

Sorry you are rather taking it on the nose here, but we really do need to be careful when we openly deride people for practices we otherwise embrace.

I have no doubt that you feel the scope of the peer review is unfair - but I'm sure that you would be supportive of a woman's studies journal, for instance, that was trying to get women past a glass ceiling, and thereby was providing some avenue for women to publish without having to get their work reviewed by men, so that they could accumulate publications and get tenure...

Well, I answered this elsewhere, as to how I feel about the degree of censorship and censure you feel is appropriate for academics.
You can reply there or here - I firmly believe that if I publish an excellent piece of science about, say, microtubules, and then publish an absolutely awful article about bird songs that makes a hash of the subject, I should still be taken seriously in cell biology. Further, I defend my right to be a serious scientist and write poetry, even bad poetry, sometimes.

We can't go around firing scientists for what they do in their off hours, I'm sure you agree. And if they can get a grant to do this AIG stuff, well, ok... let'em try.