As is usual with creationists, we find hooberus here putting forth one-sided and misleading information about this Dr. Sternberg's publishing a creationism-oriented article in a peer-reviewed taxonomic journal. I recently read an article on this in Skeptic magazine (Vol 11, No. 4, 2005, pp. 66-69) and so I was interested in hooberus' information.
The information I presented was not "misleading" and was backed up a govenment investigation letter.
In a nutshell, what happened was that Dr. Sternberg, a Christian creationist, misused his position as editor of the minor technical journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to bypass the normal editorial reviewing process to get published an article by the Intelligent Design creationist Dr. Stephen Meyer.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
|
"In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."
"The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."" |
|
|
If the normal review process were followed, the article never would have been published, partly for obvious reasons and partly because its content was quite out of character with the articles on taxonomy that the journal normally handles.
The normal review process was followed. The following explains this (and answers many objections such as the above):
http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm#Process
Furthermore, it appears likely that Sternberg chose some of his creationist buddies who hold science positions at several Christian colleges to do the required peer review.
The reviewers held qualified degrees in science.
Naturally, the scientists at the Smithsonian Institution who were hoodwinked and embarassed by Sternberg's unethical conduct took action against him.
The unethical conduct was against Sternberg, not by him.
I completely agree with all efforts that were made to censure Sternberg for his unethical conduct.
I'm sure you do Alan.
One website I found contains a good deal of information on this business ( http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/pbsw.html ), and I'm putting some of its information in this post. On his website ( http://www.rsternberg.net/ ) Sternberg states that:
Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper.
Perhaps not wrongdoing in the sense of violating a specific rule (although the governing council of the journal disputes this), but Sternberg knew exactly what he was doing when he did an end-run around the normal review process.
Sternberg followed the "normal process"
He knew what he was doing when he chose his creationist buddies to do the peer-review,
Since we don't know his thoughts, (nor the identity of the reviewers) statements such as the above are unsubstantiated.
and when he didn't run an article he knew would be extremely controversial by the board of editors of the journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm#Process
"At no time during my nearly three years as managing editor did I ever ask the Council as a body for its input on any editorial decision regarding any particular paper. Nor did the Council itself or anyone on the Council intimate to me that the Council ought to be in any way involved in editorial decision-making with regard to particular papers."
" Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.
After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts"
He knew quite well that the article wouldn't pass muster if non-creationists reviewed it, and that it was altogether inappropriate for that journal. So Sternberg certainly violated normal science ethics, and was guilty of professional misconduct.
There violation of "normal science ethics" and "professional misconduct" was not perpetuated by him, but rather against him.
