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.
Do you actually read your own citations. The author of "your" article, Ed Brayton, posts a reply on that page.....
Michael-
Nowhere in my posts on this subject have I said or implied that the paper was not sent out for review; that's simply not the issue. The issue is whether those reviewers were cherry picked to make sure that the paper wouldn't send up red flags prior to publication. We know that Roy McDiarmid from the Smithsonian saw the actual reviews. His comment was that the paper was reviewed but that whether the reviews or reviewers were "appropriate" is another matter. And that is all we know. Their names have never been released.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2006 4:21 PM
So you are wrong again.
How convenient.
So? It was reviewed as the comment above indicates.
Not at all. The whole picture shows they were very careful about not addressing his personal beliefs.
Then there would have been no reason to even mention them, since they should have been irrelevant. No NCSE was involved only because they wished to suppress any inkling of thoughts counter to the paradigm. You have been proven wrong, wrong, wrong.