Members of the intelligent design (ID) movement, when responding to arguments that journal articles don't support ID, claim that peer-reviewed scientific journals typically reject articles critical of the theory of evolution which propose some form of ID, regardless of the papers' scientific merit.
Since they [evolutionists] control the literature in evolution, they reject papers that seriously criticize it. Many authors have attempted to publish such papers and they have been rejected, not because they are flawed, but for tangential reasons. I have submitted such papers; one was rejected for "not being of sufficient interest", and another was rejected for "not being sufficiently focused." So they love to use the catch that objections such as mine to neo-Darwinian theory "have not been published in peer refereed journals."
While even according to the Discovery Institute there are several peer-reviewed journal articles that offer various criticisms of the theory of evolution in favor of ID, this doesn't necessarily speak to the proportion of such articles that were rejected, and even among those, the biological science journal articles don't explicitly propose ID and typically just question a particular aspect of current evolutionary theory.
Is there in fact an unfair standard imposed upon ID proponents to keep them out of the peer-reviewed scientific literature?