Would they expect a past president of NAS to endorse a non-peer-reviewed article? I don't know the culture.
OISM doesn't address this point, but then again I don't know if its detractors really tackle it either.
Have the detractors sent out their own mailing to the OISM petitioners and queried them to resolve this? I don't think so.
Straw man or fast one? I don't know.
Did the authors of the OISM article attempt publication in a peer-reviewed journal? If not, why not?
The PDF of the OISM article, as provided by OISM, doesn't identify OISM as the publisher. Rather, it pairs two authors with OISM, two authors with the George C. Marshall Institute, and lists no publisher.
Which would be true of any unpublished document and is true on the website version as well.
The author names and affiliations are to be found in any article as well as publisher where applicable.
Journal papers identify the publisher for copyright and citation purposes. To be able to claim acceptance for publication by a reputable journal is something the published author as well as the publisher insist on. Not citing the publisher where there is one is a potential copyright infringement as the publisher generally has exclusive rights to publication of such documents. Citing a publisher where there isn't one would be fraudulent representation.
So the issue for me remains, did the signers of the petition think of the article as a publication of NAS, or another peer-reviewed publication?
With no letterhead or logo of the NAS identifying any of it from NAS that would be a stretch. Lacking NAS identification the though would not even occur to me.
Would they expect a past president of NAS to endorse a non-peer-reviewed article? I don't know the culture.
If the past NAS president were part of the effort setting up the petition, certainly. The article is clearly identified as a summary/review of information extracted from cited papers and is no way a study in itself. It is informative and a reference not new work.
OISM doesn't address this point, but then again I don't know if its detractors really tackle it either.
Which should they? I see no reason to.
Did the authors of the OISM article attempt publication in a peer-reviewed journal? If not, why not?
It was a summary of information from other works not a study on its own. It was an informative insert, as such, it is hardly due a place in a journal as something submitted for peer-review. The original cited works referenced are what would be reasonably be subject of such journals not the referencing of such in an informative summary.
Ask Bruce Ames what happens when you run afoul of the brotherhood.