Suffice to say, the peer review process is not foolproof and has many problems and limitations: Despite the advantages, peer review is simply incapable of ensuring that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.
The history of every area of science is a record of one mistake after another.
However, it must be remembered that peer review is not a perfect process.
It is done by imperfect and sinful human beings in a fallen world.
The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation.
One of the ways they do this is to show that a particular creationist scientist either does not participate in the main stream scientific community, or—if they do—that they do not actually do research in, or are not regarded as sufficiently competent in relation to, the topics that they write about.Anonymous peer review by jealous competitors has its merits, but it has a tendency to select for fashionable if relatively unoriginal and inoffensive papers …although these reports often do not substantively advance scientific knowledge, and many subsequently are invalidated.’ It should also be noted that peer review panels do not necessarily determine whether an article is published.Nevertheless, in many people’s estimation the description ‘peer-reviewed’ has become shorthand for ‘quality.’ To say that an article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is to assert scientific validation and approval.To say that an article has not been peer-reviewed is tantamount to calling it disreputable.If the RATE [Radio isotopes and the Age of The Earth] project truly publishes some work which is good enough for publication in secular journals, then they would surely pursue that route.It is clear in this case that the “peers” for these articles are other young-earth proponents, which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the works.’ Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists?As Lawrence Altman put it: ‘[P]assing peer review is the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.’‘But unbeknownst to the media, the journals at the top got there because of herd behavior by researchers, not because they are better than lower-tier journals at vetting research quality.Here’s why: Researchers submit their best work to the top journals, which can therefore afford to maintain their prestige by rejecting, not publishing, many high quality papers. Most of their editorial effort goes into deciding which submitted papers are sufficiently newsworthy.Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth?Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?