The journal is reviewed by physicians, that would be people with medical doctorates.
The link I gave you earlier in the post you're responding to here lists their editorial board. The editorial board is the primary mechanism of review in that journal. There are people on that editorial board who do not have a PhD or even an MD, which is in direct contradiction to what you have stated above. Here's an example of one such person.
Michael J. Jabbour, MS, LAc
American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
New York, NY
An MS is a master's of science which can be attained in any scientific field. It is frequently attained in the soft sciences -- unfortunately I can't ascertain what this person received their MS in, but I can tell you that an MS is roughly 6 years of schooling and even a basic MD pre-intern requires 8 years. LAc? That's "licensed acupuncturist." This person is unqualified to be editing, much less be an associate editor.
Part of having a civil debate is to be honest and fair in the logic you employ, not tone alone. I'll try to control my tone, but in return if we're going to continue this discussion I need you to tell the truth.
And to the larger point of having a board staffed mostly with MDs, MDs can do research but usually do not. Medical research uses a different skillset than the actual practice of medicine. Applying treatments is a matter of understanding how to do so safely, effectively, and what those treatments mean based on pre-established medical information. The process of research requires a sophisticated understanding of the technology of clinical trials, psychological effects that can lead to biases, and the philosophy of science. It isn't completely unheard of to have MDs who do some research, but when you have an editorial board populated by people who are primarily MDs with little to no PhD training in experimentation itself, that's a huge red flag.
To give an example on how the real scientific community operates in order to illustrate the disparity here, day to day practitioners of medicine do not typically review medical studies. It's extremely unlikely that your family doctor reads medical journals for the sake of reviewing them and is involved in the peer review process. Doctors can do case studies and such and present them, but when it comes to being an active, involved member of the scientific community only highly qualified physicians who work at large hospitals and/or teach at universities are actually involved in the academic process of peer review. And if you glance down the list, you'll see that people on the "Medical Acupuncture" board generally have their own day to day practice, and typically do not work in these usual academic settings. Another red flag.
Now, is what they're doing "peer review?" It depends on the definition that you apply. It's peer review in the sense that members of their organization are writing articles and then their peers in that organization are reviewing it. However, "peer review" carries a connotation of legitimacy and scientific objectivity with it which this organization does not deserve. Avoiding conflicts of interest is a baseline requirement to any non-biased experimentation, and the fact that they have so many acupuncturists in their midst is pretty much a dead giveaway that they are not comparable to any reputable journal. Recall that one of the primary reasons that the Lancet rescinded Andrew Wakefield's MMR study was that they found he was guilty of a severe conflict of interest (he was trying to prove the link between MMR and Autism because he was tied to some lawyers planning a class action lawsuit).
Each article has to meet criteria to be published set forth by the journal and is then open to review, criticism and repeat experiment as required by any scientific article.
But what are those criteria and how do we know that what they're publishing is actually scientific? The fact that they shamelessly self-promote on the front page of their own website calls their credibility into question. They don't look like other reliable journals. A cursory glance shows they're not as qualified as other journals. They're clearly an organization of acupuncturists who are constantly publishing research that confirms acupuncture works in ways that are not accepted by the scientific mainstream. As such, I do not understand how anyone can claim that they are a reliable witness at this point. There is no reason to believe this.
If you'd like to present some examples of why they're credible I'd love to analyze them. If they are a legitimate organization doing legitimate research, I want to know this. If acupuncture works and the scientific mainstream is wrong about it, I want to know this too. I will adjust my viewpoint to fit the evidence, because that is the scientific thing to do.
I think it's fair to ask you, though, what sort of evidence it would take to show you that Medical Acupuncture isn't a reliable source of information so that I can produce it, because if you never set forth a criteria for falsification, there's not even a goalpost to move. On the flip side, I'll tell you what it would take to convince me of their legitimacy: a rigorous description of several (lets say 3) well-controlled, legitimate studies that they've published which show scientifically plausible benefits to acupuncture. Real studies with good sample sizes and statistically significant effects too, and certainly not a meta-analysis of data that other people collected like in your previous post.
As to Kuroneko's latest post, pets are not exempt from the Placebo Effect because it isn't due to the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy alone. It's also due to the fact that the adminstration of Placebo techniques results in a greater degree of attention and compassion displayed towards the creature receiving it; in other words, even if Acupuncture did nothing, the act of administering it to your pet still resulted in that pet being treated exceptionally which can have other beneficial effects. You also didn't control for the change of diet -- which you yourself admit that the vet said could work -- and other lifestyle differences such as helping your pet exercise more, etc.
The bottom line with Acupuncture is real simple: if it produces solid, beneficial results, then those results should be measurable in a controlled setting even if we don't understand why they occur. Unfortunately, previous data that I have referenced to on this thread makes it clear that no such thing has ever been documented. Debate anecdote after anecdote is a flawed, misguided venture because while I can suggest other possible explanations that take away the mysticism from acupuncture, if there was an actual affect, it would be measurable, therefore the chances that there is one fall in line with the validity of those studies.
The good news is, no study (or even series of studies) is ever ironclad, so I can't even say for certain that acupuncture does nothing. I can say that the evidence shows it's very unlikely that it does anything other than induce a Placebo Effect, and that's what the facts say. And I don't really have any interest in delving into the murky realm of the subjective and anecdotes beyond that.