This brings up a very important point. Creationists frequently get upset when pro-Evolution Theorists disparage Creationist material on the basis of it not having been published in a main-stream, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Furthermore, when pressed to explain the dearth of Creationist literature in the main-stream, peer-reviewed scientific journals, the charge of there being a conspiracy of some sort frequently arises.
In the example at hand, given the defects that you have uncovered, what are the odds that such an article would have gotten past the peer-review process of a main-stream scientific journal?
Additionally, what does this tell us about the real reasons why Creationist "research" does NOT get published in main-stream science journals?
Lastly, does this not go to the heart of why Creationist "research" papers have such a bad reputation in the scientific community?
Probably very low. The editor would likely spot the YEC theme, and send it to some particularly careful referee who would give it a good hard look and find the problem. Conventional bad science can occasionally slip through; unconventional bad science gets nailed.