Peer review is an imperfect system.
That said, we need to distinguish between different kinds of reports. An empirical report, with real data, is very different from a theoretical report with a lot of philosophy.
If Einstein's theory of relativity had been proposed in 1800, people would have laughed at it as obvious nonsense. However, if the Michelson-Morley experiment had been done in 1800, that would have been taken seriously. That's the distinction between theoretical advances and empirical discoveries.
Nevertheless, theoretical advances are important to science. However, their acceptability depends on the zeitgeist. It is my impression that Galileo had to do a lot of marketing of his ideas, and it is probably that marketing (rather than his experimental data) that got him into trouble with the Church.
Peer review is particularly important for empirical results. As far as I know, creation "scientists" can get empirical results peer reviewed if they are properly done, properly controlled, and actually show something of interest.
As for proposed theoretical ideas - there's an Internet you can use to get those ideas out. You don't have to depend on peer review.
If Creation Scientists are out there doing research ( and a lot of them are ) and they have journals of peer reviewed articles why can we not reference them?
If those articles are available, then you can certainly cite them in posts here. Expect criticism, particularly criticism about bad methodology.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
™ Version 4.2