Peer Review and Creationism

[6_bleen_7]

Back in graduate school I worked down the hall from a world-class phony. Real nice guy, but so full of shit you had to wonder how he kept his shape against the pull of gravity. Among other things, he'd inflated his self-importance to the point that he, a lowly grad student with no more seniority than I, envisioned himself the decision-making hub of the entire department. He somehow believed, for instance, that his advisor, the department chair, felt it crucial to consult with him before making any major executive decisions, such as hiring a new faculty member. And any visiting VIP would inevitably hear all about it, in the presence of the largest possible number of people, in a grand and mortifying display of schmoozing. Ahead, Schmooze Factor Eight!

At times like this, my compadre would give me a nudge and murmur, "He's so cute when he plays 'scientist'!" And we'd spend the rest of the meeting repressing laughter, with variable success.

I never thought I'd find a more fitting object for this little jibe-until I learned about the incipient International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). You guessed it-an entire journal devoted to creation "science," delivered straight to you from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

You may laugh at first, as I did. The publishers' disconnection from reality is nothing short of astounding. Do they imagine that references to Int J Creation Res will soon be sprinkled liberally across the landscape of PubMed? Do they expect their particular brand of fakery to be disseminated to the furthest reaches of the scientific community through Science Citation Index?

But there is something more sinister at work here, and it all hinges on one hyphenated word in the description of this farcical publication: "IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary scientific research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical framework" [italics mine]. One of the most trusted strategies for keeping crackpot ideas and fraudulent results out of mainstream science is the peer review process. (An excellent summary of peer review may be found at Sense about Science [download 221 kb PDF].) Needless to say, creationist hacks have had no luck at all convincing peer-reviewed journals in geology, paleontology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, astronomy or nuclear physics to publish their nonsense. But now, finally convinced that they won't be allowed to play with the big kids until they show willingness to follow the rules, they've gone and created their own peer-reviewed publication.

I'm not at all worried about the impact of this pretend journal within the scientific community. Naturally, the more prominent creationists are well-known to legitimate scientists, and watchdog organizations like Talk Reason and The Panda's Thumb keep tabs on their dishonest schemes. More of concern, however, is its potential influence outside the scientific community. American mass media are notoriously uncritical of fantastic claims made by persons whose only claim to authority is a claim to authority, plus a loud mouth and perhaps a seven-figure propaganda budget. Moreover, our political leaders are no better than their science advisors, when they even bother to consult them. Either group might be bamboozled by the magic words "peer-reviewed journal"; never mind that the "peers" in this case are all fellow snake-oil salesmen of the slimiest caliber.

Nonetheless, I've seen only the mildest reaction to the IJCR's "Call for Papers" in anti-creationist 'blogs. Perhaps they have reason to expect that the "journal" will quickly fade into well-deserved obscurity due to lack of interest. Maybe the Institute for Creation Research will give it up when it realizes that IJCR hasn't expanded the creationist sphere one iota beyond the already established small community of delusional "scientists" and their mindless sycophants.

But that kind of speculation is not what I wanted to write about; I'll leave that to those more sociologically aware than I. Nobody, as far as I know, has written much about the actual criteria for publication in IJCR. A careful look into the instructions for authors and referees ("peers" who review submitted manuscripts) reveals important differences between the real process of peer review and cheap ripoff to be practiced by IJCR.

The "Call for Papers" [93 K PDF] reads like a fairly typical announcement by a new journal's editorial board, except for one ominous criterion: "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the Creation Model of Origins" [italics mine]. In essence, papers must not challenge the established dogma theory of young-earth creationism (YEC). Anyone with even a rudimentary background in science would find such a requirement alarming indeed. No reputable scientific journal would ever insist that papers adhere to a particular model or theory. No reputable journal would reject a paper out of hand solely because it contradicted evolutionary theory, for instance. Creationist works would be rejected, to be sure, but on the basis of their shoddy reasoning and fraudulent misuse of data, and not on the simple fact of challenging this or that existing system of ideas.

For a contrast, look at the corresponding description of the Journal of Human Evolution.
The Journal of Human Evolution concentrates on publishing the highest quality papers covering all aspects of human evolution. The central focus is aimed jointly at palaeoanthropological work, covering human and primate fossils, and at comparative studies of living species, including both morphological and molecular evidence. These include descriptions of new discoveries, interpretative analyses of new and previously described material, and assessments of the phylogeny and palaeobiology of primate species.

In addition to original research papers, space is allocated for the rapid publication of short communications on new discoveries, such as exciting new fossils, or on matters of topical interest, such as reports on meetings. The journal also publishes longer review papers solicited from workers active in particular fields of research. All manuscripts are subjected to review by three referees.
Nowhere does the Journal of Human Evolution specify that papers must conform to evolutionary theory as it currently exists. Unlike "revealed" religious doctrine, scientific theories are not static, but continually grow and develop to accommodate new findings. This journal would not summarily reject a paper that directly contradicted evolution by natural selection, but the authors of such a manuscript would have to prepare an absolutely airtight case, in the light of the vast body of scientific findings that support the basic essentials of the theory.

Looking back at the IJCR's Call for Papers: by "assist the development of the Creation Model of Origins," the editors undoubtedly mean to "attempt to validate YEC through publishing pretend science in a pretend journal." Creationists are not interested in extending knowledge; they are only concerned with substituting Biblical literalism for scientific inquiry. To do so by publishing the IJCR may be likened to "an attempt to shore up a house of cards with sunbeams." (I wish I could recall who first penned that lovely metaphor, so that I could add a proper citation. It wasn't me, in any case.)

Like the Call for Papers, most of the Instructions for Authors [338K PDF] could have been lifted from any legitimate scientific periodical. In glaring contrast, however, is Section 8, "Author Appeal Procedure" (p. 9). I've never seen such a detailed list of protocols for dealing with disagreements between authors and reviewers. Something fishy is going on here! (The appeal procedure is described in even more detail in the "Technical Review Process" document; please see below.) In the same vein is the parting instruction on the Author Checklist (p. 12): "Work Closely with Your Editor." Usually, authors have very little contact with the editor, except to receive the decision based on the referees' comments. What's more, the editor doesn't often take a highly active role in the review process unless something strange happens during the review. (For instance, if a referee agrees to review a paper and then fails to carry through, the editor may have to step in as a substitute referee.) The members of the IJCR Editorial Board-the capital-E Editors with whom the little-a authors should closely work-are not listed on the Web site, but you can be assured that the list will read like a roll call of the creation "science" good-ol'-boys' network.

The final IJCR-related document, the "Technical Review Process, Overview and Procedures" [269K PDF] is the most bizarre of the lot. Herein we find the instructions for referees, as well as a clearer glimpse into the machinations of the Editorial Board (shown in Appendix 3, p. 13, to be internal to ICR-whaddaya know!-except as necessary to lend a veneer of reputability to the proceedings). In general, the peer-review process is familiar enough to everyone involved that a ten-page outline of the procedure is hardly necessary. But here we've departed the universe of real science for the Creationist Twilight Zone, where the laws of Nature step aside for Judeo-Christian mythology; so perhaps we need a refresher course after all.

One thing the experienced scientist will notice right away is how the IJCR flaunts its bureaucratic structure without naming any of the principals-arousing suspicions that the Editorial Board has a far more fluid membership (dictated by the peripheral members' embarrassment from serving, perhaps) than it would care to admit. I also like the haphazard outline format of this document. Arabic numerals are used at the first and second levels of organization, until Section 8, at which point the subheadings 8.1, 8.2, ..., are suddenly interposed between the first and second Arabic-numbered levels. Are the editors making a sly allusion to the rigor of thought that goes into creation "science"?

There follow two entire pages describing the possible correspondence between author and editor. You'd almost think that creationist authors had never encountered the peer-review process before. This conclusion will only be more firmly established further along, in the next two sections, describing the editors' duties and the appeal process, and in the two appendices outlining the process for referees in lavish detail. This is not to say that scientific journals don't provide instructions for reviewers. Nonetheless, a comparison between, say, the "Hints for Reviewers" from Genetic Epidemiology [84K PDF] and the IJCR equivalent reveals some stark contrasts. The former is nothing more than a guide to writing a helpful, informative review: good advice, if perhaps unnecessary for experienced reviewers. On the other hand, the IJCR instructions for reviewers (p. 10) explain the duties very carefully (with citations to the Bible!), without any mention of how the review might help the authors. Also, is it just me, or does it read as though it was written for seventh-graders? Both journals include an evaluation form for reviewers to indicate their overall impression of the scientific merit and presentation of the manuscript. Yet whereas Genetic Epidemiology only gives one sentence of instruction-where to send in the form-IJCR apparently believes it necessary to explain every detail, with plenty of patronizing remarks. Right off the bat we learn that "The form below is intended as a tool for you to convey information in an organized fashion to your Editor." O-kay. God forbid we submit a disorganized review and worry our Editor's little head unnecessarily.

In section 9, "Appeal Review" (pp. 7-8; also covered in Section 8), we discover, over a page and a half of instructions, the futility of appealing an editorial diktat. "Because of the confidence implicit by the ICR Administrative Council in the expertise and deduction of the IJCR Editor-in-Chief, Editors and their Reviewers, the burden in each such case is OVERWHELMINGLY on the Author to prove that his/her paper has been treated prejudicially or unfairly" [emphasis and unbearable, sanctimonious smugness theirs]. Feel discouraged yet? The ensuing tortuous process of appointing an appellate committee, all presumably within the same tightly-knit network of cronies that runs the ICR, appears to have no other function but to distract the author from that fact that what is really being set up is a kangaroo court. (Fittingly, Andrew A. Snelling, Editor in Chief of IJCR and in most cases the chair of the appellate committee, is Australian.) To wrap up the Appeal Review section, the following, almost apologetic, comment is offered: "It is hoped that this somewhat 'bureaucratic' process will maintain the integrity and quality of the IJCR." Assuredly, the truth is spoken here: the integrity and quality will be maintained. But at what level?

To help the referees along with evaluating the scientific (or, in this case, "scientific") merits of a manuscript, the Editorial Board provides the "Evaluation Form" [italics theirs] mentioned previously. In the "Preliminary Evaluation" (p. 11), the reviewer is to indicate the extent to which he agrees or disagrees with each of a list of statements, which I have reproduced below:
Preliminary Evaluation
[Paper is to be evaluated on the following criteria.]

1. Title of paper (to be filled out by the Editor):
2. This paper makes an original contribution to the Creation Model (see (1) above):
3. This paper is well-documented (with respect to the relevant literature):
4. This paper has considered alternative explanations:
5. This paper demonstrates an awareness of its own limitations:
6. This paper provides a basis for further work in its area or related area:
7. This paper exhibits sound methodology:
8. This paper demonstrates proper use of material and equipment:
9. This paper presents sufficient data to address its stated aims:
10. This paper properly interprets its data:
11. This paper properly develops and uses its mathematical models:
12. This paper's mathematical models are applied to the appropriate and/or important examples:
13. This paper is tightly and coherently reasoned:
14. This paper is faithful to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture:

Wow. A whole raft of quite reasonable standards for scholarship is sandwiched between two outrageous scientific deal-breakers. This list, more than anything else from IJCR's editors, brings to mind one of my favorite truisms: "Add a tablespoon of wine to a barrel full of sewage and you get sewage. Add a tablespoon of sewage to a barrel full of wine and you get-sewage." And it's no accident that the anti-scientific criteria appear at the beginning and end-the two most important positions in the list. Any guess as to which are the essential standards for publication in IJCR?

We've already looked at the first statement, about the Creation Model. It will suffice to repeat here that adherence to an immutable theory, in defiance of empirical evidence, is the very antithesis of the scientific method. What really gets me is that creationists are continually whining about the "dogmatic" stance of the legitimate scientific community in keeping untestable theories and blatant falsehoods out of the sphere of knowledge.

The final criterion is almost more amusing than farcical. That has to be the fanciest, most highfalutin' possible way of saying "whatever the hell we happen to feel the Bible says." It sure beats out the Mormon Church's affirmation of the Bible as the word of God "insofar as it is correctly translated." (I actually admire the Mormons' forthrightness in admitting what everyone else does but doesn't admit.)

I draw two overall conclusions from the IJCR's materials for authors and reviewers. First, the editors clearly expect to bring in authors and referees who haven't the slightest conception of the peer review process. Second, somebody definitely wants to keep a very close eye on every aspect of the proceedings. In summary, the editors graciously invite even the most ignorant to play along in their little game of make-believe, but they make it clear that the Editorial Board-the ICR, in other words-makes all the substantive decisions.

They're so cute when they play "scientist"!

Edited 6/18/07 to add examples from Genetic Epidemiology and to clean up the writing