That is just a fact. I doubt they would dispute it. They would, instead, dispute the quality of the review.
More importantly, accusing people of things that you expect they will do, but have not yet done, creates a very oppositional situation. It does not have to be this confrontational. There is more opportunity for agreement here than you realize.
Why? Some people have troubles with the idea of life without renewal. We don’t ask God’s permissions for babies, they just show up in the natural order of things - it’s generally considered a blessing, not a curse.
Possible? Anything could be possible with an omnipotent God. We could play the possibilities game all day, but why bother, when we have already have a good understanding of how life and ecosystems work. Trying to impose what an omnipotent God might have done - and then undone - serves no useful purpose to science. It also doesn’t seem useful to theology, as most do not need a literal interpretation of Genesis.
As some of my friend believe, the Fall introduced spiritual death, with physical death always being a reality. I have no basis to disagree with them.
Some interpretation of the Bible, and of Genesis in particular, require whole new laws of physics to operate. YEC contends that physics is false - in error - when it comes to the age of the Earth and other things. There is no alternative offered, no better explanation. YEC has no answer to the laws of physics. This is OK as a religious belief, but YEC demands that it be physical fact too.
You have this quality in common with @John_Harshman. 
And there is no opportunity for agreement without first establishing common ground for communication.
@Joel_Duff has written about YEC peer review here: Lack of Citations: The YEC Peer-Review System Goes Awry Again – Naturalis Historia . He agrees that there are peer-review YEC journals, as everyone should. That is a demonstrable fact.
They would dispute that it represents “peer-review” at all. They would say it is peer-review in name only.
Actually many here on these forums have already done this.
I don’t think I see the relevance of “agreement” with people who deny Christ, or deny biblical history, or why I should desire it. My goal is to change people’s viewpoints to match reality / the truth. Is that yours as well? Or is it to find common ground between various viewpoints? Take for example John the Baptist when confronted by a group of people that were scoffers and unbelievers (the pharisees). Did John the Baptist attempt to seek common ground, or did he simply proclaim the truth and allow the scoffers to scoff if they so desired?
There’s a very dangerously fine line between “finding agreement” and compromising the truth.
It seems you want to clarify what you meant by linking to this piece attacking YEC peer-review. Allow me to quote the last line:
“the peer-review system appears to be barely functional and is really just slapped onto these journal in-name only.”
Peer review in name only is not peer review. So even your own link agrees with exactly what I predicted would be said. Do you agree with what the link said there?
I think this is a very good observation … not just on its own merits… but also because of how it can lead us to the basic problem here:
A YEC can simply say, God arranged all of this perfectly… no matter how bizarre it might sound … and it is all bullet-proof.
And indeed, it IS bullet-proof.
I remember my early years analyzing the Flood epoch… and one day it occurred to me that all those calculations about how many animals could be carried, how much food was needed, and all the rest… each one was perfectly explainable by a miraculous arrangement by God.
The Flood was the PERFECT story - - as long as we had miracles to sustain it. In fact, there was virtually nothing about the story that didn’t require miracles.
And here we have @PDPrice arranging the perfect miracles required for Eden and all the rest to work.
And so, how do we conclude?:
We should congratulate him… and avoid the costs of trying to agitate a Christian out of one miraculous mind set into some sort of only semi-miraculous mind-set!
I think you have to look precisely at the examples he listed to justify that claim. Do you dispute any of those specific examples? If it would help, we could list them out. He claims to identify several failures of peer-review. If those are valid examples, then his claim is justified.
I didn’t see any reason to doubt his assessment of those examples. But perhaps you can show me what we missed.
A massive overstatement. If everything about the Flood were miraculous, why did God instruct Noah to build an ark at all? Why not just levitate everybody miraculously until the waters subsided?
Because it was MORE MIRACULOUS than simply telling Noah to lead the animals up to the mountains, and make the water less deep!
Why not answer my question as posed before moving on to asking me a different question? If you read what I quoted, it was very much a blanket statement. The author stated that peer-review was slapped onto “these journals” (i.e. YEC journals like the JoC) in name only.
My question to you was, do you agree with that statement as the author wrote it? Because if you do agree, then it makes your earlier statement seem misleading to put it mildly. Peer review in name only is not peer review.
Would it not have been even more miraculous still if God made the water cover all the highest mountains and then he levitated Noah and the animals above that water? Sure, I’ll let you continue digging this hole. 
I think there is peer-review, but it has often failed. What exactly is your point?
No need to shout.
That might be slightly less miraculous than the actual story.
Peer review can fail, and sometimes does, in evolutionist journals also. Since you say you believe there is peer review, that means you disagree with the article’s conclusion that you just linked me to. The author of that article categorically stated that there is not real peer review going on, but rather, it is peer review in name only.
Why would you link me to an article in support of your position that is actually arguing for the exact opposite of what you have stated?
BUT why all this fuss over Genesis in the first place?? Christianity starts with the resurrection of Christ. Everything else is secondary.
Christianity starts where the Bible starts. Jesus said, “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” Without an understanding of the historical foundations of the Messiah, there is no Christianity. Jesus is the Savior. But what do we need to be saved from? Our sins. Where did we get our sin nature from? Adam’s rebellion in the Garden of Eden. No Adam = No sin nature. No sin nature = no need for a Savior. Jesus’ teachings were very clear on this: God inspired the Old Testament and the Scriptures cannot be broken.
@PDPrice, I suppose I agree with @Dan_Eastwood. My faith rests on Jesus, not Genesis. Don’t get me wrong. I believe Genesis is God’s Word, just like you. So much so that I take what it says about Jesus really seriously. Jesus is the cornerstone, the first stone laid. Why do you disagree with us on this?
It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure that’s now how I learned it. Accepting the Resurrection is the necessity of Christianity. A literal interpretation of Genesis is not a requirement for salvation.
For the reasons I outlined above. Jesus made it clear that all the Scriptures are important. I never said my faith ‘rests on’ Genesis; my faith rests on Jesus as God, but Jesus as God inspired the whole Bible including Genesis, and the history there is no less important than the history we learn about in the Gospels. Without Genesis you cannot ever get the Gospels.
Christianity doesn’t take Jesus more seriously than the rest of the Bible; to do that would be to implicitly deny the doctrine of divine inspiration that Jesus himself taught.
I never said I believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a requirement for salvation. I do not believe it is. Faith in Christ as God and Savior is all that is required for salvation.