Answers Research Journal (ISSN 19379056) is a "peer-reviewed" (in the peer-creationist sense...) creation "science" pseudojournal, with all "scare quoted" terms used loosely. It is published by Answers in Genesis. It features pseudohistory, bad philosophy, and Biblical literalist analysis pieces, but not much in the way of science. In an article about ARJ and related issues, one of the contributors states the journal's point of view: "'We have a particular viewpoint,' Purdom stated, referring to the ARJ. 'We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'”
Appropriately enough for a journal of pseudoscience, authors are free to publish under pseudonyms, ostensibly to avoid persecution for their beliefs. It should be noted that in some cases, it may be against university or company policies to publish anonymously work that you supposedly did "in the line of duty." Although, quite honestly, if that's the best publishing you can do as an academic, you probably don't deserve tenure.
Ulrich's Periodical Directory classifies the journal under "Religions and Theology," despite having many science categories available. Upon creation of the journal, Nature, Scientific American and Discover quickly published criticism of the site. Slate and AiG themselves have also traded commentary, and several blogs such as the Sensuous Curmudgeon and Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes routinely produce criticism of the journal.
 Judging criteria
"Answers" lists a bizarre set of criteria for articles submitted for publication:
- Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
- Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
- Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
- If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively [sic] positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
- If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
- Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? 
Number 4 is by far the most important. The parallel criterion in a science journal would read, "If the paper discusses claimed evidence for science, does this paper offer a very constructive positive criticism and provide a possible pseudoscientific alternative?" Most of the published articles are invalid by criterion 2 as they are mostly re-hashed creationist propaganda.
Unlike a scientific journal, no data or methods section is required for an Answers Research Journal article, which is okay, as pretty much none of the papers have data or methods backing them up any way.
Andrew A. Snelling is the editor-in-chief, who claims to have "more than 24 years of technical scientific publication experience," including In Six Days, Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation. Unfortunately the highlight of this experience includes founding the Journal of Creation. He is also quoted as saying:
“”It is our hope that the online publication of ARJ will encourage Christians with powerful results of the latest creationist research, providing them with new resources for use in their own research and education—and in their witnessing to the truth and authority of God’s Word.
Er... and the science?
By March, 2008 Snelling had written two of the first six articles in ARJ and had edited the journal in its entirety. He has ties to the Institute for Creation Research, which funded some of his work. What a trouper!
 Content analysis
 Volume 1 articles
Volume 1 consisted of the 16 papers and 195 pages of content published in 2008. (As a comparison, the journal Biochemistry published 14038 pages in 2008, volume 47, or about 72 times more content.) Highlights of vol. 1 include a piece on peer review, which takes (Sterile, 2009) Harvard Referencing (Ace McWicked 2007) to extreme (Human 2007, Pi 2010) and quite funny (Bob, 2006) levels (tmtoulouse, 2009) and an alternative explanation for the origin of oil that amounts to Goddidit. And the Great Flood also affected Mars.
 Volume 2 articles
Volume 2 ran through 2009, publishing 16 papers with a total length of 210 pages. For comparison: one issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Volume 23 Issue 3 (March 2010) - had 17 research papers, 1 review paper and two communications for 210 page; there were twelve issues in total that year. Among the notable papers are one that says creationists should stop using conspiracy theories about Darwin as evidence (nice, but hardly science, even by the standards of the ARJ), six papers from a creationist microbes conference that are essentially review papers, and a paper on polonium halos.
 Volume 3 articles
Volume 3 ran through 2010, publishing 14 papers and three letters for a record breaking 309 pages. The highlight of the year was undoubtedly Jason Lisle's much anticipated solution to the starlight problem, his not so ground breaking anisotropic synchrony convention, where he proposes light moves different speeds in different direction. An idea explored by real physicists 50 years, before being dumped on the interesting but unimportant pile. More humorously, Larry Vardiman and Wesley Brewer discovered the technique used by mainstream hydrologists of publishing multiple papers with the same basic idea and calling each one a case study, even though on a practical level it is no different than the last paper. Combined with Snelling's two review papers on the geology of Israel, they managed to pad out what would have been a very thin volume (the five papers combining for a total of 163 pages). Although not without controversy, Todd C. Wood proposed that various species of hominids should be placed in the human baramin sparking the first letters discussion.
 Volume 4 articles
Volume 4 ran through 2011, publishing 16 papers and three letters for a total of 241 pages. Creation science was running a little thin this year, with seven papers being philosophical or theological papers rather than scientific, although it does mean that ARJ is closer to its classification than ever before. A further two more articles were more archaeological in nature, the highlight being Matt McClellan actual padding out Egyptian chronology in his attempt to reduce it to fit the biblical frame work. The most science that took place in ARJ this year was when C. R. Twidal and J. A. Bourne responded to Ken Patrick's article in 2010 on the formation of Uluṟu.
 Volume 5 articles
Volume 5 ran through 2012.
 Volume 6 articles
- Darek Isaacs, January 9, 2013
Some straight-up theology: Isaacs presents a case that humans do not in fact have dominion over the earth, citing Hurricane Sandy (can't control that one) and the dangers of non-domesticated animals, ever since The Fall. (By the way, did you know the dominion mandate has been used as proof that aliens don't exist and couldn't visit Earth?)
- Tom Hennigan, January 9, 2013
- Danny Faulkner, February 6, 2013
How the stars and constellations got their names baffles some young-earth creationists even though it is well known to have nothing to do with ancient Judaism. Faulkner is not a fan of the "gospel in the stars" theory. This piece extensively discredits a model by Frances Rolleston that Adam named the stars and constellations.
- Jeffrey P. Tomkins, February 20, 2013
Tomkins continues his obsession with the percentage of similarity between chimps and humans, in the long-running creationist quest to discredit claims of 98%+ similarity between human and chimp (and bonobo) DNA and show that humans are a different "kind."
- Danae M. McGregor, March 6, 2013
- Simon Turpin, March 20, 2013
A "day" in Genesis is so 24 hours, despite all these morally defective heretics (acknowledged here as a "vast majority") who dare make concessions to uniformitarian geology.
- Simon Turpin, April 3, 2013
- Lee Anderson, Jr., April 17, 2013
- Thomas Hennigan, May 1, 2013
The dominion discussion that started in January continues with wildlife ecologist Thomas Hennigan discussing points of disagreement with Darek Isaacs and expressing an opinion that references concerns about the environment and animals rights. Hennigan believes that Isaacs' definition of "dominion," e.g. that humans were directed to dominate the world and that all animals were to bow to man, is not consistent with man being an "image bearer" for Christ. Though he doesn't state it explicitly, Hennigan seems concerned that understandings of the nature Isaacs advances encourage a reckless disregard for the health of the planet and spends considerable time discussing caring for and protecting animals in his work. He goes so far as to acknowledge that mankind is the probable reason many animal species have gone extinct. He makes a theological case that man has a responsibility to steward God's creation as rulers with a "finite" or "limited" dominion. At base, the discussion is over the implications of various definitions of the Hebrew word וְיִרְדּוּ, with some evangelicals taking an anthropocentric view and translating it as "dominion," and Catholics and other evangelicals believing that the better translation is :stewardship: in a "Christ-centric" view.
- Andrew S. Kulikovsky, May 1, 2013
- Joel McDumon, May 1, 2013
- Darek Isaacs, May 1, 2013
- Danny R. Faulkner, May 15, 2013
- Danny R. Faulkner, May 22, 2013
ARJ puts a bibliography of creationist astronomy articles in its website.
- Simon Turpin, May 29, 2013
A dig at those backsliders, including the BioLogos Foundation, who consider Adam as possibly being in any way allegorical.
- Danny R. Faulkner, June 12, 2013
Danny admits that the astronomers are measuring distances correctly and hence YEC is problematic. But, "we have a number of solutions already in the creation literature, but further proposals are welcome." Yep, try to backfill, Danny.
- Michael Brandt, June 26, 2013
- Mark L. Ward, Jr., July 10, 2013
Apparently, social constructionism literally means that anything you want to be true is true, and anything you want to be false is false.
- Danny R. Faulkner, July 24, 2013
You would think the creationists would give the speed of light problem a rest after such terrible proposals as c-decay and the anisotropic synchrony convention. But, no, Faulker comes up with another that is just as terrible. The solution:
“”As I have previously argued (Faulkner 1999), I submit that God’s work of making the astronomical bodies on Day Four involved an act not of creating them ex nihilo, but rather of forming them from previously-created material, namely, material created on Day One. As a part of God’s formative work, light from the astronomical bodies was miraculously made to “shoot” its way to the earth at an abnormally accelerated rate in order to fulfill their function of serving to indicate signs, seasons, days, and years. I emphasize that my proposal differs from cdk [c-decay] in that no physical mechanism is invoked, it is likely space itself that has rapidly moved, and that the speed of light since Creation Week has been what is today.
Yes, God's perfect creation screwed up again to backfill for literal Genesis. Right.
- Nathaniel T. Jeanson, August 7, 2013
- Jeffrey P. Tomkins, August 21, 2013
- Danny R. Faulkner, September 4, 2013
- Callie Joubert, September 18, 2013
- Tom Hennigan, October 2, 2013
Another list of animals which the creationist magically ascribe to kinds.
- Jeffrey P. Tomkins, October 16, 2013
- Simon Turpin, October 30, 2013
- Lee Anderson, November 13, 2013
- Danny Faulkner, November 13, 2013
- Jean K. Lightner, November 27, 2013
Another baraminology paper, this time on birds. This time, Lightner arbitrarily places the kind at the family or order level. Even Lightner says, "This is overly simplistic." She continues,
“”There are many unanswered questions at this point. We still need to further assess diversity within kinds identified by hybrid data. This will help us understand what characteristics God designed to vary to enable birds to fill the earth. Hopefully this will suggest parameters for delimiting the kinds. Thus there is plenty of room for more exciting research to better understand how our magnificent Creator designed and provides for His Creation.
That is, we have no clue what we are doing.
As of the first article of volume 5, 70% of the articles in ARJ had at least one author that is an author on another paper. Jerry Bergman has seven; Andrew Snelling has five; and Callie Joubert, Georgia Purdom and Larry Varidiman each have four. A very diverse field, indeed!
 Accusations of deceit and questions on the peer-review process
For AiG's take on an "evolutionist"'s attempt to "discredit" the journal, see their website. Interestingly, no one ever seems to try to discredit science journals for some reason, nor would a science journal editor lambast a creationist for doing so. Interestingly, Snelling comments on the evolutionist's scientific inaccuracies in an e-mail, and comments that "[U]nless you can somehow seriously demonstrate in a proper and rigorous scientific manner and therefore convince me otherwise, I must reject your paper as bogus, and an attempt to claim a prize being offered on the Internet for successful deception."
One must wonder about the journal's peer-review process. Does that mean that Dr. Snelling is hand-picking articles for this journal instead of sending it to a few reviewers and finding the reviewers' consensus? Is it really professional to imply an intent to win an internet prize without more evidence, when the journal could just reject the article on its selection criteria? Why is the submitter's e-mail and the reply to a submitter made public and not kept confidential? Even if the submitter is kept anonymous, to use one's submission to make a point is questionable ethically.
 See also
 Journal volumes
- Answers Research Journal volume 1
- Answers Research Journal volume 2
- Answers Research Journal volume 3
- Answers Research Journal volume 4
- Answers Research Journal volume 5
- Answers Research Journal volume 6
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/
- ↑ http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=1515
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Peer-Reviewing the Bible - Entry 5." Slate. 2008 February 13.
- ↑ "Any author using a pen name or who has a reason for not wanting their biographical details publicized on the AiG website should specifically request this, and their wishes will be respected." from page three of the instructions to authors (large pdf file).
- ↑ http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ulrichsweb_news/uu/newTitles.asp?uuMonthlyFile=uu200712/new_titles.txt&Letter=R&navPage=9&
- ↑ Geoff Brumfiel . "Creationists launch 'science' journal." Nature 451, 382-383 (2008). doi:10.1038/451382b
- ↑ http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-mystery-illness-strikes-bats
- ↑ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/02/13/inside-a-creationist-journal/
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/16/news-to-note-02162008 #5 on the list
- ↑ http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/?s=Answers+Research+Journal
- ↑ http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?as_q=Answers+Research+Journal&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ctz=240&c2coff=1&btnG=Search+Blogs&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&bl_pt=&bl_bt=&bl_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhjhop.blogspot.com%2F&bl_auth=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=a&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=26&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2010&lr=&safe=active
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/arj/instructions-to-authors.pdf page nine.
- ↑ For more about Dr. Snelling, see here
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about
- ↑ http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-sixdays.html
- ↑ Whew! A whole 50! That's like a mid-sized graduate program!
- ↑ http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/01/11/free-answers-research-journal/
- ↑ A critical blog post on Snelling's role as editor of Answers Research Journal is here
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp
- ↑ https://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_snelling/
- ↑ http://pubs.acs.org/loi/bichaw
- ↑ Journal of Evolutionary Biology Volume 23 Issue 3
- ↑ An abstract to an upcoming article appears on the website. We await the proposal!
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/14/caught-in-the-act
|Main article: Clogosphere|
|Clogosphere - O'Leary, Denyse - Nienhuis, James I. - Republican Faith - Science and Math Defeated - Milloy, Steve - WorldNetDaily - Dembski, William|
|Main article: Answers Research Journal|
|Answers Research Journal volume 1 - volume 2 - volume 3 - volume 4 - volume 5 -|