I've just read through http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/creationguidelines.asp and their guidelines are a fine example. It's just a pity they don't actually apply them.

Some choice ones are:

"Editors like to see accuracy. If you write Ayres Rock and the Editor knows it's really Ayers Rock, or you write Nicholas Steno and the Editor knows it should be Nicolaus Steno, or you say that Charles Darwin was an eighteenth century mathematician and the Editor knows that both those facts are wrong - he will be wary of everything else in your article. Check every name, date, and other fact in your final version."

Accuracy has certainly been a distant last on most creationist articles. It's nice to know that the editor is set up as the final abitor of the accuracy of facts.

"Editors like to see logic. Present the points in your article in a logical sequence. And make sure the final paragraphs are built on all that has gone before."

Now logic and creationism is a wonderful oxymoron.

"Editors like articles that suit their publication's purpose. You wouldn't send motoring articles to a cooking magazine, or real estate articles to a computer magazine. So make sure the articles you send to Creation magazine are about creation-related issues."

ie: if it supports our dogma, we'll print it.

"Editors like to see facts that can be backed up - not speculation. If your article has to come to a speculative conclusion based on a lot of facts you' ve given, with references - that's fine. But don't build speculations into a conclusion. The most interesting articles usually contain anecdotes, quotes, and lots of facts."

I'm still waiting to read a single creationist article that has any "facts" backed up. I think I'll be waiting a very long time.