Just curious, was the article properly peer-reviewed before appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific journal?I would guess that is what peer-reviewed is all about. But decide for yourself.
Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'
However, National Center for Biotechnology Information staff scientist Richard Sternberg told The Scientist the three peer reviewers of Meyer's paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."
All found the paper "meritorious, warranting publication," he said.
Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled creationists by the scientific community, noting: "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
Note: This is from the "World Net Daily", not "The Scientist"(to preclude the inevitable red herring attack)
Here are links to the Defense of Richard Sternberg
http://www.rsternberg.net/
http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm
There have been a number of strange rumors and allegations concerning the procedures for the publication of the Meyer paper. As these allegations come to my attention I will add to this page additional information regarding the truth of the matter.
 |
The Meyer paper was not rushed through the process. It was submitted in March 2004 and published in August 2004, a normal time from submission to publication. |
|
I did not act unilaterally or surreptitiously in my handling of the Meyer paper. Within the Society, I raised and discussed the paper and its potentially controversial nature with a scientist on the staff of the Museum of Natural History and a fellow member of the Council of the BSW soon after its submission and before deciding to send it out for peer review, and then again after receiving the peer reviews and before sending notification to Dr. Meyer of acceptance. I discussed the paper with this scientist on at least three occasions. Each time this person encouraged me to proceed, stating that the controversy would be beneficial since it was good occasionally to shake up people's established views on important issues. |
|
I followed the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers' comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly. |
|
Dr. Meyer became a paid member of the BSW after the paper was accepted and before it was published, the standard practice for first-time authors or authors whose previous membership has lapsed. He also paid all the appropriate "page charges" for his article, a bill amounting to approximately $1600. |
|