Via John Battelle’s search blog, I read an article by Elizabeth Couvering: Is relevance relevant? After "in depth" interviews of search-engine producers, she concludes:
…resources in search engine development are overwhelmingly allocated on the basis of market factors or scientific/technological concerns. Fairness and representativeness, core elements of the journalists’ definition of quality media content, are not key determiners of search engine quality in the minds of search engine producers. Rather, alternative standards of quality, such as customer satisfaction and relevance, mean that tactics to silence or promote certain websites or site owners (such as blacklisting, whitelisting, and index "cleaning") are seen as unproblematic.
Via several science blogs, I have learned that the Institute of Creation Research is launching a peer-reviewed journal, the Institute for Creation Research Journal. Here is its peer-review process:
The following criteria are to be used in judging the papers: (a) Is the Paper’s topic important to the development of the creation model? (b) Does the Paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the creation model? (c) Is this Paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework? (d) If (c) above is not satisfied, does this Paper offer a very constructively-positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative? (e) If the Paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate? (f) Does this Paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? (if necessary refer to Walsh, R.E., Biblical Hermeneutics and Creation, Proceedings First International Conference onCreationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1986, Vol. 1, pp. 121–127). The Editor-in-Chief should not be afraid to reject a Paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria nor is in the best interests of ICR as judged by its Biblical stand and goals as outlined in its Tenets.
Well, stating the conclusion you want to reach and saying that you will only consider publishing contributions that support it may be a "transparent" process, but that’s about all you can say about it.