Sociologists study the impact religion has on child development

[MineralMan]

51. Here's the thing about junk "scientific" journals:

They're junk. For example, here's a link to the American Journal of Homeopathy:

https://homeopathyusa.org/journal.html

It's a "peer-reviewed" journal. The problem is that all of those "peers" who are reviewing articles are homeopaths. Homeopathy is not a science. It's a bogus theory of therapeutical use of diluted materials that have such a high level of dilution that none of the principle ingredient even exists in the final dilution.

So, no matter how many reviews by "peers" are done, the initial premise in all of the research is false. If a "remedy" appears to work, it is because the patient got better through natural healing processes. Homeopathy is useless.

Yet, this journal exists, and it frequently referenced by proponents of homeopathy. Because it is "peer-reviewed" that is supposed to lend credibility to the worthless research being done.

Reviews of research articles done by people who are unqualified or who hold the same views as the author, are worthless. Publications that publish such articles are also worthless. The number of "pay-to-publish" pseudo-scientific journals out there is growing, with more being published each year. Citations from them appear in all sorts of bogus websites and blogs. But the information is false that is included in those journals, just as the "research" done on homeopathy is worthless.

Theology-leaning journals are even worse. No matter how many "peers" review what is published in them, the basic premise that some deity exists somewhere negates all conclusions reached. There is nothing of science in them. It is all self-serving god-bothering.

And yet, people will persist in posting citations, third-party articles, bloggery, and other assorted nonsense that is based on such bogus journals.