The fact that Creationists don't (often) publish in secular peer reviewed journals is often used as an argument against the validity of Creationism. But the reality is the rarity of Creationists publishing in secular peer reviewed journals isn't because there's something wrong with the evidence, but that there's something wrong with the journals.
That flaw is called bias. Logically speaking, all independent thinkers are biased. Bias simply cannot be avoided, and it's not always a bad thing. I'm very biased against allowing drunk pilots to fly, and few people would disagree with that. Except pilots who want to fly drunk, of course. They're obviously biased (and hopefully extremely rare) towards flying drunk. Secular journals, like any media outlet, are biased. They are not obligated to publish anything, and are far less inclined to do so when an article is submitted by a Creationist. Good quality science does not automatically require a journal to publish an article, nor does unbelievably sloppy science make it impossible to be published.
An example of the latter is German anthropologist Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten's utter fraudulence. His streak of fraudulence spread over the course of 30 years, the most laughable of his "discoveries" being a human skeleton dated to around 27,400 B.C. In reality, the owner of the skeleton had died in 1750. (1)
So, good science is not necessarily a criteria for getting into peer reviewed journals, but surely secular journals will publish good science whenever the opportunity arises? Not if Christine Gilbert, editor of the journal "Science", is to be believed. Upon receiving a letter from Dr. Russel Humphreys inquiring as to whether or not the journal had an unspoken rule about not allowing Creationists to be published, Gilbert admitted "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism." (2)
So, rather than being evidence that Creationism lacks scientific evidence, a lack of peer reviewed Creation articles comes from a strong bias against the evidence. If a peer reviewed journal is biased against Creationism, of course they're not going to post peer reviewed articles that support it. You'll literally sooner find Bible Brain saying nice things about Calvinism than you'll find a Creationist article in a secular journal.
But of course, Evolutionists will say that this bias is a good thing. It's a good idea to keep Creationism out of peer reviewed journals, because Creationism is bad science. This further reveals the bias, but I'm actually going to say that's completely fine. I don't care if peer reviewed journals are biased against Creationism, even if that means the evidence for Creationism is suppressed. But there are two caveats:
1. Admit that bias. There's no shame in admitting to possessing the same flaw as all other intelligent life forms on earth.
2. Stop using it as evidence for that bias, as it's circular. If your view has any credibility, it should have non-circular arguments.
On the whole, the fact that Creationists rarely publish in secular journals is not evidence against Creationism's validity. Creationism is a well-grounded worldview, based on large quantities of evidence. Refusing to let us publish that evidence in publications that wish it didn't exist doesn't make it magically disappear.
References
1. Harding, Luke - History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud, The Guardian, Saturday Feb 19th 2005 (link)
2. Gilbert, Christine, in reply to Russel Humphreys, cited in Creation's Tiny Mystery, Robert V. Gentry, 1988