Sternberg Peer Review Controversy - The Peer Review Process

The Peer Review Process

Sternberg insists the paper was properly peer reviewed, and rejects the reason given by the journal for disavowing the article, saying:

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

A series of articles in Skeptic criticized the decision to publish the article. Michael Shermer disputed Sternberg's qualifications as a peer reviewer, stating that it dealt less with the areas Sternberg was qualified to review (systematics and taxonomy) than it did paleontology, for which many members of the society would have been better qualified to peer review the paper; at that time the Society had three members who were experts on Cambrian invertebrates, the subject discussed in Meyer's paper. A follow-up article by Ed Brayton criticized Sternberg's decision to review the paper, given his ties to a known movement that opposes the theory of evolution:

"Sternberg argues that he had the authority to publish Meyer's paper. But having that authority does not excuse the professional and ethical misjudgments. If you know that the publication of a pro-ID paper in a Smithsonian journal is going to cause an outcry, and you have close ties to the ID movement and to the author of this paper specifically, the ethical thing to do would be to excuse yourself from handling that paper and allow someone without those personal and professional ties to the author and subject of the paper to decide whether it should be published. Thus, Sternberg's decision to publish the paper without the normal peer-review process is a flagrant breach of professional ethics that brought disrepute to the Smithsonian."

— Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair

Doubts were raised whether the reviewers were evolutionary biologists. According to an article by the Society of Academic Authors Meyer said the article grew out of a presentation he made at a conference attended by Richard Sternberg where they discussed the possibility of a paper for society's journal. Observers have pointed to affiliations that in most circumstances would have disqualified Sternberg from reviewing an article on intelligent design. They note that Sternberg is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, a Discovery Institute-affiliated group dedicated to promoting intelligent design. Sternberg is also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Sternberg claims to have also checked with a Council member and 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."

Of the four "well-qualified biologists with five PhDs" Sternberg identifies, one was Sternberg himself, contributing his double doctorate to the total he cited. Sternberg's claim of following proper peer review procedures directly contradicts the published public statement of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that the proper procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction. In previous years the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington had published yearly lists of all the people who had served as peer reviewers. That list is absent for 2004, the year of the incident. Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the three "well-qualified biologists," citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them.