Help defend free speech and free scientific inquiry in the U.S.
Sign the Academic Freedom Petition.

Peer review

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
To submit articles for Peer Review - see CreationWiki:Peer review

Peer review broadly defined is the process of inspecting and scrutinizing an author's material (usually of a scholarly or scientific nature) by collegues on an equal level to the author. The process exists to provide impartial judgment of a work or works, determining authenticity and originality, and to screen out errors, flaws and frauds.

In relation to the creation/evolution debate, peer review is frequently discharged as a reason not to trust creationist materials, because creationist research is not "peer-reviewed" by secular journals.

Contents

Creationists and Peer-Reviewed Journals

While most scientific journals summarily dismiss works of a creationist nature (and in some cases, works entirely compatible with evolution, but composed by a creationist), research within mainstream scientific and evolutionary journals is useful for demonstrating the flaws, changes and revisions to evolution.

Furthermore, in numerous creationist magazines and journals, there exists a system of peer review for the creationist community. In some cases, the review is double-blind; the author does not know who submits criticisms, and the critics are not informed of the author they are critiquing.

Discrimination Against Creationists

There have been very many notable examples of an author's work or credentials being repudiated strictly because of the author's position on evolution.

  • Marcus Ross earned a doctorate from the University of Rhode Island after submitting his thesis on mosasaurs. His work was sound according to evolution, but some still questioned whether any young-earth creationist should be given the credentials with which he might "miseducate the public."[1]
  • Forrest Mims was refused a position with Scientific American after his creationist beliefs were uncovered.[2]
  • Richard Sternberg was harassed after allowing an article by Discovery Institute fellow Stephen Meyer to be published in the publication Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington of which he was editor.[3] (U.S. Office of Special Counsel's letter to Dr. Sternberg confirming his allegations)
  • Francis Beckwith was denied tenure by Baylor University, allegedly because of his views on intelligent design and abortion.[4]

The Pitfalls of Peer Review

In the haste to put such emphasis and respect on peer review, some of its difficulties are overlooked. There are at least two important factors that can influence research, and the reputation of peer review, negatively.

Bias

Personal bias may allow mistakes or even fraud to be published. For example, research from the Health Partners Research Foundation published in Nature revealed that five percent of scientists admitted to completely discarding data because it did not fit their previous conclusions. Fifteen percent changed or altered data or conclusions from data based on gut instinct, or to satisfy parties sponsoring the research.[5]

Error

According to research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), "previously published statements, regardless of whether they are subsequently shown to be true or false, can have a profound effect on interpretations of further experiments and the probability that a scientific community would converge to a correct conclusion."[6]

Related References

See Also

Retrieved from "http://creationwiki.org/Peer_review"
Personal tools