Did you read Sternberg's website that I posted here?
He explains the editorial process, and states that Meyer's
article was no different. So..
Sternberg is either lying, or the author of that website
that you site, doesnt really know what he is talking
about.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:56:27 -0600
kbmill@ksu.edu wrote:
>
>> From what I can tell, it sounds like Meyer's article
>>went
>> through the same review process that every other article
>> published in that journal goes through. On what grounds
>> do you make your claim that the editor should never have
>> allowed it to be published?
>
>The second article posted on this, states that one of the
>complaints is
>that the article did not go through the standard review
>process. It
>states:
>
>?The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological
>information
>and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2,
>pp. 213-239
>of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of
>Washington, was
>published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard
>v. Sternberg.
>Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was
>published
>without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled
>the entire
>review process."
>
>I am not taking any position on this, I am simply
>encouraging people to
>withhold judgement until the facts are known (if they
>ever will be). My
>perception, is that people holding widely differing
>positions
>immediately jump on such reports and turn them into
>causes (making them
>sound conspiratorial). Paricularly in situations where
>jobs are lost
>or reputations damaged, it usually is the case that the
>situation is
>very complicated and intertwinned with all manner of
>personality and
>other issues. I am very cautious in taking any public
>stand on these
>things.
>
>All I know is my own situation and professional
>associations. I have
>personally experienced no professional rejection because
>of my public
>stands on science/faith issues. Questioning sure --
>rejection no.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 1 15:38:45 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 15:38:45 EST