5 ms·

Yes, if that is the reason, but not if their work is rejected merely if it is YEC. I recently saw a paper get accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected

by yters 6y ago

Yes, if that is the reason, but not if their work is rejected merely if it is YEC. I recently saw a paper get accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out the authors were associated with intelligent design. That is inappropriate in my opinion.

eesmith 6y ago
The ones I've heard about ("accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out") are usually due to subterfuge or some undermining of the system. Eg, using terms that obfuscate the YEC aspects of the paper, which isn't obvious enough for the reviewers to understand what it actually means. There are also journals which accept anything, with little or no review (eg, some conference papers) and societies which allow their members to publish anything, and use post-publication review to retract papers. Or sometimes someone with YEC beliefs gets editorial control and start green-lighting YEC papers not on merit but because of those personal beliefs. Can you point to the incident? Do you think it was rejected merely because it was YEC? Or because the evidence presented didn't actually support a YEC claim?
- yters 6y ago
  Recent one I saw: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/07/elsevier-journal-disavows-but-does-not-retract-paper-on-intelligent-design/ https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/07/elsevier-journal-disa...
  - eesmith 6y ago
    (FWIW, this paper wasn't retracted, but that detail isn't that important. It's also an ID paper, not a YEC one; both are part of creationalism and the difference isn't important enough for the point of this discussion.) The key questions are: Do you think it was controversial merely because it was on ID? Or because the evidence presented didn't actually support a ID claim? It appears that paper falls solidly in my description of how such works get into print, eg, cherry-picking quotes: 1) added the keywords "intelligent design" after editorial review 2) "naive to the point of being silly" 3) "I can only speculate, but inattention to the details and unfamiliarity with the references might have played a role [in how the article made it into print]."
    - yters 6y ago
      I don't follow why hiding references and names should matter, if that is even what was done. Shouldn't the content of the paper be paramount? It looks like a paper was accepted based on its own merits and then disowned when the editors discovered it may be associated with an unpopular viewpoint. I have no idea why that is acceptable in a professional venue.
      - eesmith 6y ago
        To answer your question "Shouldn't the content of the paper be paramount?" directly, NO! If the conclusions of the paper have already been demonstrated to be incorrect, but the authors both know those objections and leave out discussion of them, then it's a seriously flawed paper. Reviewers and editors cannot catch all merit-less papers. The acceptance system is based on a system of trust, including trust that the authors have highlighted possible flaws in their argument. There's also the post-publication review process, including retractions. Moreover, most reviewers will not have experience with creationist literature (because it's a pseudoscience with no predictive ability), so are not likely to notice a paper which uses certain terms which only have meaning to creationists. For example, "design" could mean "the result of natural evolutionary processes", but to a creationist it might mean the design of a creator, that is, as short-hand for "intelligent design." Had they used "intelligent design" at the start, it would have helped the reviewer understand the context. Leaving that out until after the review process ended makes me suspicious that this omission was deliberate.
        yters 6y ago
        It seems like you are responding to something other than I said.
        yters 6y ago
        To elaborate on my comment, if you've read the paper, they have a large section devoted to fine tuning, intelligent design, and the surrounding criticisms and responses, all with explicity references to the main authors, such as Dembski, and their works. I'm not really grasping how your comment is addressing the paper and the reason for the warning notice.

by yters 6y ago

eesmith 6y ago

The ones I've heard about ("accepted by a biology journal, and then rejected because the editors found out") are usually due to subterfuge or some undermining of the system. Eg, using terms that obfuscate the YEC aspects of the paper, which isn't obvious enough for the reviewers to understand what it actually means. There are also journals which accept anything, with little or no review (eg, some conference papers) and societies which allow their members to publish anything, and use post-publication review to retract papers. Or sometimes someone with YEC beliefs gets editorial control and start green-lighting YEC papers not on merit but because of those personal beliefs. Can you point to the incident? Do you think it was rejected merely because it was YEC? Or because the evidence presented didn't actually support a YEC claim?

yters 6y ago
Recent one I saw: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/07/elsevier-journal-disavows-but-does-not-retract-paper-on-intelligent-design/ https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/07/elsevier-journal-disa...
- eesmith 6y ago
  (FWIW, this paper wasn't retracted, but that detail isn't that important. It's also an ID paper, not a YEC one; both are part of creationalism and the difference isn't important enough for the point of this discussion.) The key questions are: Do you think it was controversial merely because it was on ID? Or because the evidence presented didn't actually support a ID claim? It appears that paper falls solidly in my description of how such works get into print, eg, cherry-picking quotes: 1) added the keywords "intelligent design" after editorial review 2) "naive to the point of being silly" 3) "I can only speculate, but inattention to the details and unfamiliarity with the references might have played a role [in how the article made it into print]."
  - yters 6y ago
    I don't follow why hiding references and names should matter, if that is even what was done. Shouldn't the content of the paper be paramount? It looks like a paper was accepted based on its own merits and then disowned when the editors discovered it may be associated with an unpopular viewpoint. I have no idea why that is acceptable in a professional venue.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      To answer your question "Shouldn't the content of the paper be paramount?" directly, NO! If the conclusions of the paper have already been demonstrated to be incorrect, but the authors both know those objections and leave out discussion of them, then it's a seriously flawed paper. Reviewers and editors cannot catch all merit-less papers. The acceptance system is based on a system of trust, including trust that the authors have highlighted possible flaws in their argument. There's also the post-publication review process, including retractions. Moreover, most reviewers will not have experience with creationist literature (because it's a pseudoscience with no predictive ability), so are not likely to notice a paper which uses certain terms which only have meaning to creationists. For example, "design" could mean "the result of natural evolutionary processes", but to a creationist it might mean the design of a creator, that is, as short-hand for "intelligent design." Had they used "intelligent design" at the start, it would have helped the reviewer understand the context. Leaving that out until after the review process ended makes me suspicious that this omission was deliberate.
      - yters 6y ago
        It seems like you are responding to something other than I said.
      - yters 6y ago
        To elaborate on my comment, if you've read the paper, they have a large section devoted to fine tuning, intelligent design, and the surrounding criticisms and responses, all with explicity references to the main authors, such as Dembski, and their works. I'm not really grasping how your comment is addressing the paper and the reason for the warning notice.