Want to publish something? Worried that you don’t actually have a lab or an opportunity to do real research? Never fear, the Institute for Creation Research has put out a call for papers, and anyone can get published there! (Well, just about anyone. I doubt that anything I submitted under my name could get published, or that any legitimate scientist could stoop this low.)
High quality papers for the International Journal for Creation Research (IJCR),
sponsored by the Institute for Creation Research, are now invited for submission. IJCR
is a professional peer-reviewed online technical journal hosted by the ICR website for
the publication of interdisciplinary scientific research from the perspective of a recent
Creation and a global Flood within a biblical framework.Interested authors should download and read the Instructions to Authors Manual pdf
file from the IJCR webpage at www.icr (please supply) for all details of requirements,
procedures and paper mechanicals. The Technical Review Process Manual, also a pdf file
downloadable from the IJCR webpage, provides a comprehensive overview of the technical
review procedures for submitted papers.Papers should be up to 10,000 words long, and color diagrams, figures and photographs
are encouraged. 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. Papers should be submitted in a plain text, single line-spaced Word or RTF
file. Formatting should be kept to an absolute minimum. Do NOT embed graphics,
tables, figures or photographs in the text, but supply them in separate files, along with
captions.Papers should be emailed as attached files to the IJCR Editor-in-Chief at
aasnelling@ozemail.com.au, and other requirements followed as per the Author Checklist
in the Instructions to Authors Manual. We aim to publish submitted papers within six (6)
months of receipt.
There is an opportunity here, though. Their standards are low enough that someone could just sit at his computer and make up some novel rationalizations, write it up in a pseudo-scholarly format, and get it published. If you try it, let me know … and let’s see how long it takes for your argument, no matter how bogus, to get disseminated and used on the creationist lecture circuit.
This is a rather exciting opportunity for me as nothing I have ever written has been encumbered by anything which can properly be referred to as “research.” (I hear rumors that Wikipedia is not accepted as a proper citation for a research paper, is that true? I haven’t time to look it up.)
I wonder if they would accept my comparison between the Two Georges’ Scientific Proofs of God for publication? Or would you say that it is too spotty even for them?
I aim for fame anyway I can get it.
I was thinking that this would be a good opportunity for some kind of Sokal hoax, but in hindsight, proving that creationists have lax editorial and intellectual standards is just shooting fish in a barrel.
working title:
A comparison, and fesiability study, of methods to account for Pre-European distribution of plants and animals post Noahic flood.
Damn it I want the math on MRV catapults
“The earth isn’t round either. Yep! It’s shaped like a burrito”
— Available. One Bloom County reference, for use in Culture Wars.
I should write an article before revealing it’s a hoax.
“you try it, let me know …”
Are you hinting we should..?
This reminds me of watching my young children pretending to do adult things by mimicking what they have seen. Going through the motions, saying the words, but no idea what any of it really means.
I’d like to get on their peer review committee.
“I question the claim that this author makes regarding the formation of norweigian fjords. Recent YEC-dates show that the fjords were formed in the predeluvian epoch, most likely as a result of the war in heaven between God and Satan. The author makes no attempts to address these claims.”
Man, that would be so much fun! I could just make shit up! Eat a burrito, wait 4 hours, and I’ve reviewed a paper!
Yay! First laugh of the day.
Here we go. Another redefinition of terms.
You’re being to hard on the young children by saying this.
Whoa… excuuuse me, but everybody knows that the Norwegian Fjords were designed by Slarty Bartfast. He even won an award for it.
Come on Brian, everyone knows the Norwegian Fjords were designed by Slartibartfast.
Damn – beat me to it.
Well, of course they were designed by Bartfast, I’m not an idiot. Look you guys, if validity and integrity were the goals of the IJCR, then I wouldn’t have to lie so much.
In order to become a “peer reviewer”, I’ll need to write a paper too. I’ve come up with one that’s just shy of the 10,000 word limit:
“Godidit.” I’m thinking a nice watercolor of an idyllic garden scene would accent it well. And some illumination. Every good
religiousscientific paper has illumination.Rienk said:
“You’re being to hard on the young children by saying this.”
You’re absolutely right. Children are practicing what they see to try and figure things out. These people are lying in an attempt to sustain and spread their delusions.
Lots of pictures too please. Apparently things like facts are a secondary consideration to lots of nice pie charts.
Ah yes, cargo-cult science. Don’t you just love it.
Thanks ICR, but I’ll stick to publishing in Uncyclopedia. It has a higher impact factor.
Their link is broken.
High-quality technical journal, indeed.
Absolutely priceless.
This really would be a pretty darn good opportunity for a Sokal style hoax. Babbling on about nonsensical technical details that they will never check, all leading to reinforcing the Biblical literalist view, and you’d porbably get in no matter how uninformed you are.
“peer reviewed” = “sneer imbued”
“professional peer-reviewed online technical journal”
Another example of re-framing. Now everyone gets a “peer-reviewed journal” so “science” and “ID” are equivalent.
That was easy.
As much fun as it would be, I don’t want to give them any ammunition.
It’s not like they’re going to publish that it was a hoax, so now you have to find a way to make that knowledge public.
And even if you do, they’ll probably still repeat the claims in your fake paper if they’re convincing enough.
Take a look at the guide for reviewers: one of the points to grade on is “This paper is faithful to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture.”
What the heck does grammatico-historical/normative mean?
“What the heck does grammatico-historical/normative mean?”
I’m pretty sure it means “my.”
I offer the following title for anyone who wishes to use it, or a variant:
“The Adamic-Noachian descent of man conclusively demonstrated by the existence of the Aka and Efe tribes of Africa, as well as by achondroplasia, pycnodysostosis, and growth hormone deficiency”
I see opportunities here. I wonder if they do, say, book reviews (textbooks and stuff).
re: #18
“Their link is broken.”
Maybe it’s a missing link…
— CV
I wonder if they’re willing to go multi-media. Someone should try submitting the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron banana video.
Owlmirror: I wondered how long it would take for someone to get to pygmies and dwarfs. You win!
Here’s a chance for someone to submit a Creation-based pseudoscience paper that uses someone else’s scriptures such as the Hindu Vedas.
Monado:
Looks like the Vedanta people beat you to it.
Authors don’t exactly have to swear to adhere to a particular creed, but it sounds pretty close. I guess by “peers,” they mean like-minded individuals having little or know understanding of science. Unless, by chance, they meant “pee-ers,” in which case you’re trulu referring to “A Golden Opportunity.”
Perhaps some of the ideas from Objective Ministries Creation Science Fair could be expanded into a full paper:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html
My personal favorite, I think it deserved better second …
2nd Place: “Women Were Designed For Homemaking”
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
“twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was”
If anyone’s going to be writing about fjords, may I suggest that you mention that it provides an optimal habitat for the species Puteulanus norvegianus (ask Google) ?
All OVER that. If they let in a paper by a high schooler, either I look like a kickass writer or they look like freaking morons. Or both! Or I wind up looking bad, but I’ll take one for the team here.
Now if I can just find a laughable yet original conclusion to start from…
…I looked at their page for the master’s program in bio. Sounds pretty sweet. I’m pretty sure if you didn’t have any standards and you were any kind of intelligent person you could make it quite far in the creationist world. How easy does it have to be to get into their master’s program? I mean honestly: “A bachelor’s degree in Biology, or one of the other life sciences or its course equivalent, is ORDINARILY(?!) prerequisite for admission to the M.S. degree program…”
If I were concerned soley with making money and getting my name out there, this would be AWESOME!
d’oh! “soley” = solely
…editing comments would be nice.
What the heck does grammatico-historical/normative mean?
Same as “Innuendo-Roman/suppositorial”
I just got a neat suggestion for a paper over at my site. If you like black holes, come give Ben a hand!