I am teaching a Sophomore/Junior level evolution course at Texas Tech (where a significant proportion of my students believe evolution is anti-God). One of the activities I have them do is take three creationist claims about science and use the peer-reviewed scientific literature to find evidence to support or refute the claim. It makes them really think about the issues; and if they follow the directions, it does a better job than any of my classroom activities convincing them that the claims against evolution are just a bunch of hooey. Unfortunately, there are journals claiming peer-review status that are not. It can be very frustrating. Like Raphael, I also wonder if there is a good source the students can use as a rubric for telling if a journal article is peer-reviewed.
***************************** Kerry Griffis-Kyle Assistant Professor Department of Natural Resources Management Texas Tech University --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> wrote: From: Raphael Mazor <[email protected]> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 5:03 PM I've noticed a number of cases lately where groups with a strong political agenda (on topics like climate change, evolution, stem cells, or human health) cite "peer reviewed" studies in journals that are essentially fabricated for the purpose of advancing a specific viewpoint. What's a good way to tell when a journal is baloney? Of course, it's easy for a scientist in his or her own field to know when a journal is a sham, but how can we let others know it's obviously fake? For example, are only "real" journals included on major abstract indexing services? -- <><><><><><><><><> Raphael D. Mazor Biologist Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 3535 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714-755-3235 Fax: 714-755-3299 Email: [email protected]
