"He has also claimed that he discussed the paper on a number of occasions with a Council member who agreed the paper should be published."

I have a copy of an email from said Council member which acknowledges that Sternberg in fact did mention that he was working on a paper on intelligent design, although the member never read it. But as with Matzke's emails from Scott, I can't release it.

The way I heard it, the council member that Sternberg references in his defense (a) was never given the actual paper, (b) had no familiarity with the creation/evolution issue and didn't know what "intelligent design" was or what the paper argued, and (c) therefore feels exploited by Sternberg's usage of this communication with the council member in Sternberg's defense.

"Is it not established that the article was solicited - and on a topic outside the usual run for the journal?"

No. All that has been established is that Meyer talked about the Cambrian explosion at a conference to which both he and Sternberg attended, and that they "discussed the possibility of publishing the work" (here). It's quite a jump to interpret that as the article being "solicited".

And even if it was, that wouldn't change the fact that Sternberg was harassed because he let a submitted paper friendly towards ID get peer-reviewed and follow the reviewers' recommendations.

As for the topic being "outside the usual run for the journal", I seem to remember another article where that was also the case.

We have different views of what constitutes solicitation. I would regard inviting a fellow speaker at a conference which we had both attended as solicitation. You think different.

I am sure that there are many papers published in inappropriate scientific journals; the issue here is whether the editorial board were kept in the dark, and whether they would have agreed with the editor's decision to publish the paper if they'd known about it in advance.

"The editor chose to retain full control of the paper himself, despite the fact that (i) he has no expertise in the subject of the paper (unless he's magically grown a PhD in Cambrian palaeontology which no-one's noticed) and (ii) there were associate editors who did have such expertise."

The subject of the paper wasn't Cambrian palaeontology. Meyer made some claims about the lack of interphyletic transitional fossils, but explicitly said that it was peripheral to the main subject of the paper - the origin of information involved in the generation of bodyplans.

The paper was described as an "information-based analysis of the Cambrian explosion". Forgive me if I tentatively suggest that a proper review of such a paper would have to involve knowledge of Cambrian palaeontology.

"He also had an interest - as a Fellow of ISCID, which exists to promote ID - which one would have expected him at least to disclose, and perhaps to have considered sufficient to disqualify himself from handling the paper."

The purpose of ISCID isn't to "promote ID".

So, for example, the motto "Retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature" that still appears on its website masthead is mere verbiage?

This is, with respect, a little like Sternberg's claim that Meyer isn't a creationist; which I find a bit difficult to believe of someone whose continuation on faculty at PBAU depends on his continued belief that mankind was specially created by God (whatever the evidence says…).

While I'm on that subject, I still don't understand how Sternberg can claim not to be an ID advocate. The conference at which he and Meyer were speakers was the 2002 RAPID event at BIOLA, a closed event which only ID advocates were permitted to attend - or at least that was the reason given to Welsey Elsberry when refusing his registration.

"While the reviews he obtained recommended publication, there are considerable question marks over whether the reviews were appropriate since the editor has refused to identify the reviewers, and the President of the BSW, who has seen the review file, has expressed doubts about their appropriateness."

Not exactly. Here is what the President, Roy McDiarmid, wrote:

"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 the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire."

I know what he wrote, and it tallies with my description. You will have noted that the ISC and Souder's personal staff report don't quote the final sentence. Do you not find that a little disturbing from such a source?

In a later email, he expresses discontent that Cambrian paleontologist Douglas Erwin wasn't among the reviewers, suggesting that he too was confused about the topic of the paper. Considering that a clear reading of the paper would have disabused him of this notion, I can't help but wonder where he got it from. A got bet would be an email from the NCSE, who were instrumental in spreading the "Meyer's paper is all about missing transitionals" meme.

Perhaps he was misled by reading the paper and its self-description, which I cite above?

"He has also claimed that he discussed the paper on a number of occasions with a Council member who agreed the paper should be published."

I have a copy of an email from said Council member which acknowledges that Sternberg in fact did mention that he was working on a paper on intelligent design, although the member never read it. But as with Matzke's emails from Scott, I can't release it.

Your description of the email falls short of substantiating Sternberg's claims. He claims to have "discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

Does the email confirm that he had discussed the paper three times with Sternberg? Does it explain how he could have meaningfully discussed the paper without having seen it? Does it confirm that he encouraged Sternberg to go ahead and publish without reference to the rest of the editorial boad or the board of the BSW?

Well, in Sternberg's defense, he didn't really grasp, on a gut level, the fact that there are special rules for Darwinian critics. Nobody expects Darwinists, or Darwinist sympathizers, or scientists that belong to groups that promote Darwinism and criticize alternatives, to disqualify themselves for ethical reasons from the peer review process in the biological fields.

Perhaps you could identify the special rules that exist for "Darwinian critics" - I'm not aware that anyone has proposed any.

Perhaps you could start by describing what you mean by a "Darwinian critics" In the obvious sense of the words, that term describes the vast majority of evolutionary biologists.

"Is it not established that the article was solicited - and on a topic outside the usual run for the journal?"

No. All that has been established is that Meyer talked about the Cambrian explosion at a conference to which both he and Sternberg attended, and that they "discussed the possibility of publishing the work" (here). It's quite a jump to interpret that as the article being "solicited".

And even if it was, that wouldn't change the fact that Sternberg was harassed because he let a submitted paper friendly towards ID get peer-reviewed and follow the reviewers' recommendations.

As for the topic being "outside the usual run for the journal", I seem to remember another article where that was also the case.

"The editor chose to retain full control of the paper himself, despite the fact that (i) he has no expertise in the subject of the paper (unless he's magically grown a PhD in Cambrian palaeontology which no-one's noticed) and (ii) there were associate editors who did have such expertise."

The subject of the paper wasn't Cambrian palaeontology. Meyer made some claims about the lack of interphyletic transitional fossils, but explicitly said that it was peripheral to the main subject of the paper - the origin of information involved in the generation of bodyplans.

"He also had an interest - as a Fellow of ISCID, which exists to promote ID - which one would have expected him at least to disclose, and perhaps to have considered sufficient to disqualify himself from handling the paper."

The purpose of ISCID isn't to "promote ID".

"While the reviews he obtained recommended publication, there are considerable question marks over whether the reviews were appropriate since the editor has refused to identify the reviewers, and the President of the BSW, who has seen the review file, has expressed doubts about their appropriateness."

Not exactly. Here is what the President, Roy McDiarmid, wrote:

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 the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire.

In a later email, he expresses discontent that Cambrian paleontologist Douglas Erwin wasn't among the reviewers, suggesting that he too was confused about the topic of the paper. Considering that a clear reading of the paper would have disabused him of this notion, I can't help but wonder where he got it from. A got bet would be an email from the NCSE, who were instrumental in spreading the "Meyer's paper is all about missing transitionals" meme.

"He has also claimed that he discussed the paper on a number of occasions with a Council member who agreed the paper should be published."

I have a copy of an email from said Council member which acknowledges that Sternberg in fact did mention that he was working on a paper on intelligent design, although the member never read it. But as with Matzke's emails from Scott, I can't release it.

I wonder why his fellow scientists reacted negatively to the situation and his exemplary conduct?

Well, in Sternberg's defense, he didn't really grasp, on a gut level, the fact that there are special rules for Darwinian critics. Nobody expects Darwinists, or Darwinist sympathizers, or scientists that belong to groups that promote Darwinism and criticize alternatives, to disqualify themselves for ethical reasons from the peer review process in the biological fields.

Maybe if we just made it explicitely clear what the rules are for Darwinian critics, we can avoid this unpleasantness in the future.

An editor allows a pro-ID paper to be published, and his fellow scientists turn his work environment into a snake pit.

Hmmm. "Allows" Is it not established that the article was solicited - and on a topic outside the usual run for the journal?

The editor chose to retain full control of the paper himself, despite the fact that (i) he has no expertise in the subject of the paper (unless he's magically grown a PhD in Cambrian palaeontology which no-one's noticed) and (ii) there were associate editors who did have such expertise.

He also had an interest - as a Fellow of ISCID, which exists to promote ID - which one would have expected him at least to disclose, and perhaps to have considered sufficient to disqualify himself from handling the paper.

While the reviews he obtained recommended publication, there are considerable question marks over whether the reviews were appropriate since the editor has refused to identify the reviewers, and the President of the BSW, who has seen the review file, has expressed doubts about their appropriateness.

Despite all of this, Sternberg did not discuss the paper, its topic, publication or peer-review with anyone else on either the society's Council or the journal's editorial board. He claimed, when it became an issue, that he was the best-qualfied member of the editorial board to handle the paper - apparently an absurd claim, unless he distinguishes between the ID-friendliness of the paper and its actual content. Even if this were true in every particular, it only covers the reason why he handled the paper, and not why he kept its existence secret until publication - nor does it even address the doubts over the peer-reviews.

He has also claimed that he discussed the paper on a number of occasions with a Council member who agreed the paper should be published. The Council has stated that it unanimously considers the paper inappropriate; which suggests either that Sternberg didn't have the conversations he claims, or that while he had the conversations, the Council member was misled either deliberately or inadvertently by Sternberg, or that the Council member doesn't recall the covnersations - an odd circumstance given the issues involved.

I wonder why his fellow scientists reacted negatively to the situation and his exemplary conduct?

Can anyone produce an article that has ever been submitted to a science journal in intelligent design, favorable to ID, that was rejected? I am unaware of any such articles in existence.

here

his fellow scientists turn his work environment into a snake pit.

In the U.S., work environments are snake pits. If IDists don't have the stomach for it, they best stick to anonymous internet blogging.

In short, there is not a shred of evidence that ID articles will have difficulty getting published. In point of fact, every article submitted has been published, even though they didn't deserve it. But there is no evidence that any ID article has ever been rejected.