Published in Journal with Quackery

[shtumpa]

---

Members do not see this ad.

-

 

[shtumpa]

the more i think about it the more im freaking out

 

[Goro]

Is this a peer-reviewed journal? Can it be found in PubMed? Any reliable publication database?

If no, just list it under "publications, non-peer reviewed."

 

[shtumpa]

-

 

[Wannabeplumber]

bummer

 

[cs24]

You're thinking too much into this. They will see it, go "oh they have an obscure publication" and move on.

 

[shtumpa]

-

 

[AspiringERMD]

Is this a peer-reviewed journal? Can it be found in PubMed? Any reliable publication database?

If no, just list it under "publications, non-peer reviewed."

How could it possibly be legitimately peer-reviewed if it has Creationism in it, though? Who are the "peers," Ken Ham's minions at Answers in Genesis?

 

[Goro]

Only OP can answer this. But re-read what I wrote, just to make sure we're on the same page.

How could it possibly be legitimately peer-reviewed if it has Creationism in it, though? Who are the "peers," Ken Ham's minions at Answers in Genesis?

 

[ndafife]

Worst case they decide its not a reputable journal and look at you as a student who has a lot of research and no publication. No one is going to punish you for getting published in a quack journal

 

[shtumpa]

-

 

[Doug Underhill]

I'd actually be a bit worried about this. Research-heavy schools aren't going to look kindly on someone being published in a journal that routinely publishes stuff from Ken Ham.

Why did your advisor recommend such a journal?

 

[MrLogan13]

What journal is this? I don't see any reason not to mention, since you already mention the type of content it publishes.

 

[shtumpa]

del

 

[shtumpa]

Thank you for your responses.

 

[AspiringERMD]

It happens, unfortunately; usually in third-rate journals (e.g. http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/) with very slick titles and discussions (e.g. a long discussion of criticisms of current theories in regard to, who knows, protein folding) that aren't as honest as Ken Ham's bible citing. And this one is like fifth rate.

Oh, I know those guys. For future reference, the ironically-named Discovery Institute is largely an intelligent design "research" organization, similar to the Answers-in-Genesis-affiliated Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Essentially, the whole mindset of their "researchers" is to assume that evolution is false and then come up with data that, in their minds, supports a literal interpretation of Genesis. So if they have a "journal," it's not just third-rate... it's mostly just a gaggle of ID proponents stroking eachother's egos.

I'm very glad you know this now, though. Any interviews you get can be used as opportunities to offer an explanation if needed! Best of luck. If that's the worst problem you have, you'll be fine.