Prove that he didn't. After all, the paper was retracted by the council, not for lack of peer review, but for the second-guessing on appropriateness.
Again, by whom besides Sternberg?
By two or three others who chose not to have their names disclosed.This is supported by a commenter from "your" blog who states that anonymity of the reviewers is an important part of the peer review process. Although the commenter then uses this principle to cast doubt upon the review, trying to have his cake and eat it too. And your link also states that Sternberg was qualified to perform the review as it concerned the area of systematics. Which is defined in the wikipedia partly ...Biological systematics is the study of the diversification of life on the planet Earth, both past and present, and the relationships among living things through time.. The Cambrian "explosion" is certainly about the diversification of life on the planet earth. I can find no other definition that would exclude the wiki defintion from reasonableness.
One that does a very good job, with quotes and sources.
I give you wiki.
Nice cherry-picking. Read the rest from Scott.
Call it what you like. It proves your statement is a lie. And the mistreatment of Sternberg is verified by the Office of the Special Counsel.
My guess is that the markings were on a cover for the document, not the document itself.
IOW you have no evidence. Typical
It's in the article. That's what the whole issue is about.
By two or three others who chose not to have their names disclosed.
How convenient. I don't suppose any of those supposed people were members of the society? From the council's statement:
Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.is supported by a commenter from "your" blog who states that anonymity of the reviewers is an important part of the peer review process.
Anonymous peer review doesn't mean that the publisher doesn't get to know who the reviewers are. It means the author (Meyer) doesn't know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers don't know who the author (Meyer) is. This is supposed to prevent any bias against the person during the review. If anonymity is what was wished, Sternberg could have easily accomplished an anonymous peer review from within the expert editorial staff, but he didn't.
If he indeed put it out for peer review, it was probably not anonymous, but done by other Discovery Institute fellows who would of course sign off on Meyer's work. This would explain why such a horrible paper got published.
Don't forget that this fits into the Wedge Document's goals -- to have ID research in established peer-reviewed journals. Too bad they couldn't get it done honestly, instead they had to get an inside man to push it through without peer review from the journal editors.
And your link also states that Sternberg was qualified to perform the review as it concerned the area of systematics.
It also names others on the staff who were even more qualified.
Call it what you like. It proves your statement is a lie.
Not at all. The whole picture shows they were very careful about not addressing his personal beliefs.
And you still haven't shown one thing that was actually done to him because of his beliefs. The report was written for a DI ally, Rep. Souder, to promote the agenda. Its conclusions can't be trusted.
I know, he lost his keys because he was an IDer. That's what the movie claimed.