Kreationisti ''tiedettä''

LauriT kirjoitti:

Surffasin netissä ja löysin tällaisen sivun: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj
Tuonne kreationisti tiedemiehet voivat lähettää papereitaan suuresta tulvasta ja muusta tärkeästä KUNHAN vain paperi täyttää pienet vaatimukset:

VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

Lähde: http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf

Hienoa! Vertaillaan sitten mitä Science vaatii:

1. Reviews should be objective evaluations of the research. If you cannot judge a paper impartially, you should not accept it for review or you should notify the editor as soon as you appreciate the situation. If you have any professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, or a history of personal differences with the author(s), you should describe them in your confidential comments.
2. If, as a reviewer, you believe that you are not qualified to evaluate a component of the research, you should inform the editor in your review.
3. Reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments; Science reserves the right to edit out comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts.
4. Just as you wish prompt evaluations of your own research, please return your reviews within the time period specified when you were asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, it is your responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request.
5. The review process is conducted anonymously; Science never reveals the identity of reviewers to authors. The privacy and anonymity provisions of this process extend to the reviewer, who should not reveal his or her identity to outsiders or members of the press. The review itself will be shared only with the author, and possibly with other reviewers and our Board.
6. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Please destroy all copies of the manuscript after review. Please do not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors' specific permission (unless you are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
7. You should be aware of Science’s policies for authors regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing. See www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl.

Lähde: http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/review.dtl

Tai Nature:

Nature journals receive many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in a Nature journal, a paper should meet four general criteria:

* Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
* Novel (we do not consider meeting report abstracts and preprints on community servers to compromise novelty).
* Of extreme importance to scientists in the specific field.
* Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature journal rather than the best of the specialist journals.



Lähde: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/peer_review.html

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä