[quote name='martemius' date='Nov 26 2009, 05:59 AM']
Are you referring to when I mentioned "legit journals"? If so, then okay, here's an example --
Legitimate: Journal of Applied Physics
Not legitimate: Answers in Genesis Research Journal
Why? Compare --
("Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins.")
If that's not self-explanatory, the illegitimate journals are the ones with clear and undeniable bias.
And whom is it that decides what is acceptable practices regarding peer review? Wait, I'll take a guess; peer reviewed?
It is the very scientists that dis-allow material they don't agree with that are the "jury" of whether their practices and decisions are fair. That is the essence of the fallacy of peer review. It is a system intending to be fair, but incapable by design of completing that intention. The design is for peer reviewed scholars to review the material to be reviewed. When it does obviously not match the criteria they understand to be relavent, they must deny, for it is outside the spectrum of their study. They are not peers of young universe/earth research. They research indicates an old universe. Research that does not, is flawed. It is the only assessment they are able to make, by design. And when there decisions are challenged, their peers, like minded scientsts agree that the material does not match the criteria of their research. Pardon me but, DUH.
That is the standard of all fields and why peer review is a fallacy. There are many, once prominent scientists, whom have fallen off the peer reviewed pedistal when they stepped out of line. Their reearch ethics had not changed, just their interpretation of the evidence.