Richard von Sternberg has created this website to reply to the various criticisms of his editorial judgment in publishing Stephen Meyer's ID paper in The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
I read with great interest what he had to say, and I have posted a reply in this post over at EvolutionBlog. It seems to me that at times his phrasing is just a bit too cagey, and his reply leaves me wondering about a number of things.
5 Comments
Reed A. Cartwright · 28 September 2004
I think it is funny that Sternberg claims that he was the most qualified editor to review the paper. IIRC, one of the associate editors is a paleozoologist (or something similiar). He or she is definately more qualified to review a paper on the Cambrian explosion than Sternberg. The paper is so flawed that we can only conclude that the material was beyond the expertice of the people who reviewed it.
frank schmidt · 28 September 2004
There is an easy way to solve this problem. Submit a refutation to the journal, and see if it is fiarly reviewed and accepted. Many journals have published things that turn out to be horsehocky (spoon-bending, cold fusion, dilution of something 120 powers of ten and retaining properties, etc.) In most of those cases, the proper remedy is an article refuting the nonsense. Let's just someone do it.
Gary Hurd · 28 September 2004
Well Frank, you are correct. Have you looked over "Meyer's Hopless Monster" yet?
The other question I have is whether or not it would be suitible for a small sytematics journal.
Reed A. Cartwright · 28 September 2004
I doubt PBSW will publish a response to Meyer (2004). They want this to go away.
Frank Schmidt · 28 September 2004
I think the reputation of the journal would be irreparably compromised if they didn't publish a refutation.