Great observation. This question is still valid with just a minor modification. “In what ‘scientific’ peer-reviewed journal was the research published?” The Creation Research Journal is sure to be pseudoscientific and therefore does not qualify.

Naturally we would also want to know how well it weathered public scrutiny and if the results have been independently reproduced. Unfortunately the general public is sufficiently informed to ask these basic questions.

“Why not take the challenge, prove you can do it, and win a million bucks?”

and

“Where is the peer-reviewed research?”

As someone said (was it Eugenie Scott?), “[A crank] can do more damage in a minute than I can fix in an hour.” The quick retort is important because it conveys a point in a way that’s quickly and easily digestible to a layperson.

Losing the quick retorts doesn’t make either side’s message more or less legitimate, but it does make the message more difficult to communicate. And since the skeptic’s message is by nature more subtle and complex, we need all the quick retorts we can get.

This reminds me of something published in 1890 [yes, about 118 years ago!],

written in Popular Science Monthly’s editorial section

(vol. XXXVI, p.122; archived here in full since it is out of copyright, http://books.google.com/books/pdf/The_Popular_Science_Monthly.pdf?id=lt4KAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=gq3DJocr3dJ9eTh7az4rnDSh07E )

in response to the complaint from a member of the clergy who asserted that the secularity / ‘agnosticism’ / nonreligiosity of Herbert Spencer’s ‘Data of Ethics’ was a position as sectic / religious as any creed / system of belief (huh?!?) [similar to Creationists claiming that evolution and the scientific outlook are just another religion {always fails in court}]:

“he says that to introduce such a book is to give a sectarian character to the school [a public school...] we [this journal's editors] must enter a protest. Science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what cannot be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence some particular creed.”

-r.c.

“ARJ will disseminate research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science by providing scientists, students, and supporters the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.”

(emphasis added)

It is not a legitimate science journal if they state up front they will only accept papers that support a specific conclusion.