First recorded "slow motion" snapback placemarker.
Let's examine your post in more detail.
I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?
ad hominem. One can be aware of controversies within a particular field, and the personality conflicts which simmer beneath the surface, contaminating the supposedly pristine peer review process, by reading on various blogs; by reading news stories on scientific fraud; or by listening to friends and co-workers who have been involved in the whole shebang, without any requirement that one has been involved in the process.
The problem is more subtle than you suggest however, on the principle that "he who is closest to a problem has the greatest likelihood to know all about it, but also the greatest temptation to hide his own personal interests in it."
Those who practice science, whose livelihood depends on it, and whose career, professional pride, professional standing, and self-esteem are all wrapped up in it, are likely going to be the ones least likely to own up to cracks in the edifice; least of all to philistines who aren't capable of understanding anyway.
Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?
Nice use of the 'heads I win, tails you lose' : when evos here cite arguments lifted straight from atheist talking points, they are allowed to hide behind "SCIENCE": but when people attack the actual practice of science as compared to the PR, they must be derided has having merely copied by rote from creationist sites.
Again, it need not hold, it does not follow.
It is instructive that such an accusation is the first thing you fly to.
If you bother to look, you can find postings by avowed (contradiction in terms) atheists talking about partisanship within science, and politics openly interjecting itself into science -- at the hand of DEM Congresscritters. (No fundies involved.)
P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.
Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.
Once again, Dilbert to the rescue:
Cheers!