Publication process for the Meyer paper
The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")
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 respect. 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. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.
From original receipt to publication the processing, reviewing, revising, and editing of the Meyer paper took about six months. (By contrast, I once helped colleagues at the Museum rush out a paper on a topic upon which they feared that others were about to preempt them in about four weeks from receipt of the paper to publication.) Even after the paper was completely finished, due to other more pressing matters it sat on my desk for more than two weeks before I finally made time to send it to the printer. Thus, any allegations that I somehow rushed the publication process are patently false. http://www.rsternberg.net/
=============
Now, I REALLY have to get some work done, but I felt it necessary to respond due to the way you guys are attempting to trash a decent man's name on a public forum. Just when I think you guys have hit rock-bottom, you go lower.
Peace.
Have you bothered to look at #192?
You mean, like when we compare our adversaries to bank-robbers? Or their beliefs to pedophilia?
Your sepulchre is really gleaming white today, MM. Nice job!
LOL. So a paper reviewed by three unnamed experts, plus an editor with an acknowledged creationist bias agreed to publish a paper whose arguments and conclusions they disagreed with.
Several this about this stand out. It is always possible to write an article in which the arguments and conclusions are sound. Why would experts not continue the editing process until they agreed with the arguments?
Second, if the experts disagreed with the arguments and conclusions, why didn't they say so at the time of publication? Why not append a disclaimer indicating the article was published solely for encouraging debate?
I have to conclude that Sternberg got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had to backpeddle.
I will expect you, in future posts referring to the Meyer article, to mention the fact that the people who accepted the article for publication disagreed with it.