Nothing to add regarding the study itself that Nelsted’s facebook post didn’t cover.
What I will note, however, is that calling this a groundbreaking peer-reviewed study is an empty claim. Snelling is THE head editor of Answers Research Journal. If he wanted to claim it was peer reviewed, it should have gone, at the very least, in CRJ or CRSQ, where other creationists with a geoscience background could have looked at it. It doesn’t really feel like they even tried to give their claim of peer review a technical pass.
Isn’t that a conflict of interest? I seem to recall being told that in reputable mainstream scientific journals, editors are not allowed to publish their own research.
From: Savaş Topal, Mehmet Özkul, “Soft-Sediment Deformation Structures Interpreted as Seismites in the Kolankaya Formation, Denizli Basin (SW Turkey)”, The Scientific World Journal , vol. 2014, Article ID 352654, 13 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/352654
Clastic dikes are coarse material deposited by water-escape structures. In the cited paper the clastic dikes are interpreted as resulting from seismic activity leading to fluid (groundwater) differential pressure among adjacent beds.
Hmmm, turns out that this isn’t a hard and fast rule. There are occasions when editors can publish in their own journals:
However, it is generally avoided if possible. Seems it is only considered acceptable when the journal is a very specialised one in a field where there are few or no alternative outlets available, which, as @Mr_Wilford has pointed out, is not the case here. Furthermore, on those occasions, the authors concerned are expected to exclude themselves from the peer review and editorial process.
In his case it’s a conflict of interest for sure. This should have been published, minimum, somewhere where YEC geologists like Clarey, John K. Reed, or Baumgardner could have given it the green light. Realistically it should be published where mainstream geologists could review it too, but I don’t really expect to ever see that take place.
