Can you imagine what would happen in the creationist community if creationists could get their papers published in a scientific journal without peer-review? I can. There would be much rejoicing, I think the correct term is. And now they can, in WebmedCentral.
WebmedCentral is post publication peer review: the papers are first published and then reviewed online as readers can add their comments. I am not kidding.
The harm? The harm is that there is now nothing stopping creationists of all stripes from publishing shoddy papers concluding that evolution is wrong and creationism is correct. Even if someone knowledgeable takes the time to write a review to destroy the paper, it is still published, and that fact is guaranteed to be touted to no end. The ensuing dismal reviews will be relegated to an admission that there is a controversy, but that would not be news in the slightest, and therefore not really significant for creationists.
It's a very, very bad idea. Even if it is aimed at biomedical research, creationists can still publish in the fields of zoology and bacteriology, for example.
Here's a research article in the subject of Chinese Medicine: Analysis of volatile components in rhizome zingibers, zingiber officinale roscoe and ginger pee by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and chemometric resolution.
Note that this title is copied and pasted as is on WebmedCentral. Yes, it says ginger pee in the title! (It should be 'ginger peel'). Here's Ginger Pee:
Grace with background Ginger Pee.
Is there any way that I could be wrong, and this enterprise will not turn out badly for serious science? Please do tell.
Update 9/23: Never mind. Seems like PLoS ONE is doing it already.
How can you trust non-gardeners?
6 hours ago in The Phytophactor