Misplaced Pages

Sternberg peer review controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:37, 2 July 2006 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits + Why peer review is such an issue for ID proponents, with cite← Previous edit Revision as of 16:38, 2 July 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits grmmrNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Sternberg peer review controversy''' arose out of a conflict over whether an article published in a scientific journal that supported the ] concept of ] was properly ]. One of the primary criticisms of ] is that papers supporting their position is that they have failed to produce research that appears in peer reviewed ]. '''Sternberg peer review controversy''' arose out of a conflict over whether an article published in a scientific journal that supported the ] concept of ] was properly ]. One of the primary criticisms of ] is that they have failed to produce research papers that appear in peer reviewed ] that support their positiong.


On ] ], an article by ], Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' . The journal's publisher claims the editor, ], went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. Sternberg disputes the claims. On ] ], an article by ], Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' . The journal's publisher claims the editor, ], went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. Sternberg disputes the claims.

Revision as of 16:38, 2 July 2006

Sternberg peer review controversy arose out of a conflict over whether an article published in a scientific journal that supported the controversial concept of intelligent design was properly peer reviewed. One of the primary criticisms of intelligent design movement is that they have failed to produce research papers that appear in peer reviewed scientific journals that support their positiong.

On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . The journal's publisher claims the editor, Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. Sternberg disputes the claims.

On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article:

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. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which claims that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.

Sternberg insists the paper was properly peer reviewed, and rejects the journal's allegations for disavowing the article. As managing editor, Sternberg says, he chose to administer the review himself as the most qualified editor in his opinion, rather than involving an associate editor. He claimed to have also checked with a Council member. Sternberg further claimed to have followed the standard practice for peer review:

. . .Three reviewers responded and 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. . . . four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. . . .

Sternberg's statement directly contradicts those of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that proper review procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction.. Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them. Identifying the reviewers would have allowed the journal's board to validate Sternberg's claim to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication. Reviewer of Sternberg's own published paper were fellow Baraminology Study Group peer Todd Wodd, and prominent intelligent design proponents Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells.

In a review of the article Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations." Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles.

Critics of Sternberg believe that Sternberg himself was biased in the matter. Close personal and ideological connections to the paper’s author suggest at least the appearance of conflict of interest they say. In 2002, Sternberg presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. The RAPID conference was attended by Stephen C. Meyer, the author of the paper. The RAPID conference was organized and hosted by the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), where Sternberg serves as a ISCID fellow . ISCID is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement, where Meyer serves as the Program Director of the Center for Science and Culture. The RAPID conference was closed to all but intelligent design advocates. They describe his explanation of events, that a pro-intelligent design paper just happened to find its way to a publication where he was editor and ultimately responsible for ensuring proper peer review and editing his last issue and that he decided it was appropriate to deal with the review process in person on a subject in which he has a personal interest, as improbable and a just-so story. Critics of Sternberg have also described manner in which Sternberg responded to the publisher as secretive and borderline unprofessional, saying he apparently denied the journal’s editorial board access to the names of the paper's reviewers to which the editorial board is entitled in order to carry out its supervisory role.

As part of a subsequent labor claim against the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History where Sternberg served as an unpaid research associate , Sternberg claims that he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" and cites a letter by the United States Office of Special Counsel as supporting his version of events . Pim Van Meurs and other critics have called into question this claim, asserting that the Office of Special Counsel lacked jurisdiction over the matter, that the Smithsonian was never given a chance to respond, and that no official findings or conclusions were made by the Office of Special Counsel.

In response to to a Wall Street Journal op-ed article from article by David Klinghoffer, a vocal intelligent design proponent , Sternberg's Smithsonian supervisor, Jonathan Coddington responded publicly disputing many of Sternberg's and Klinghoffer's claims.

In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg's religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. It was determined that as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, Sternberg was not actually an employee, and thus the Office of Special Counsel had no jurisdiction.

Critics have commented that the Office of Special Counsel itself was biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the religious right and the Republican Party, with George W. Bush appointee James McVay authoring its opinion.


External links

Categories: