"... 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.