Obviously, Klinghoffer's article is not objective, since it only presents one side of the story (and if the fact that the folks at PT are scientists, the fact that Klinghoffer is an strictly Othordox Jew(and likely a creationist) is another clue). The Panda's Thumb thread necessarily presents the other side, since Klinghoffer's views of the situation are obviously very different than what is reported by Dr. Coddington. We have a he-said, she-said story going here. Who is right? To me it appears that Klinghoffer is in error, since his article is so vague as to be insubstantial, and Coddington has come up with specific refutations of words that Klinghoffer has attributed to "sources" at Smithsonian. Sternberg has not certainly earned any benefit of the doubt from me at any rate, with his end-around deceit to get a paper published without proper review.
This review makes it perfectly clear how you can tell that it was not peer reviewed, as a properly peer reviewed paper wouldn't have made it to press without so many logical errors in it.
The review makes nothing clear and the "logical errors" sounds like wishful thinking on their part.
Here's what Sternberg says about it. He doesn't identify by name the three scientists who reviewed the work. He does, however, note that Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order.