5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − + − + + + +
→Peer Review Controversy
== Peer Review Controversy ==
== Peer Review Controversy ==
In August of 2004, Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, making it the first article in support of intelligent design to be published in a peer reviewed journal. <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref>
In August of 2004, Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref>
Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher released a statement retracting the article, stating it had not met the journal's scientific standards and had not been properly peer reviewed. <ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON]</ref> The statement also endorsed American Association for the Advancement of Science's resolution that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.
Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher retracted the article, alleging it had not met the journal's scientific standards and had not been properly peer reviewed. This statement was met with much skepticism, with the real reasoning for the paper's retraction being extreme hostility towards intelligent design. This was confirmed when Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the Biological Society of Washington and a scientist at the Smithsonian, later admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer's paper<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/4689]</ref>:
<blockquote>I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.</blockquote>
The journal's editor, [[Richard Sternberg]], was harassed and demoted<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489 Smithsonian's top officials permit the demotion and harassment of scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution]</ref> for his publishing of Meyer's article.
== References ==
== References ==