Replies

Sorry about that typo.
Journal editor is a position of trust and they are expected to follow standard procedures. They aren't supposed to make it up as they go.

"STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

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."

First, Smithsonian officials tried to remove him directly, charging that as managing editor he had violated the publication process. But Sternberg followed the procedure perfectly. He discussed publication with a fellow scientist at the Smithsonian, and before publication he had the article peer-reviewed by three molecular and evolutionary biologists — all with doctoral degrees.

The interesting thing in regard to this last skullduggery of prying into his religion is that Sternberg is not an advocate of Intelligent Design, but of the structuralist approach to biology. But the assumption of those “digging for dirt” was that, if he believed in God, then his skull was obviously soft enough to admit Meyer’s paper rather than reject it outright.

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."

You are confusing "typical" with "required". As managing editor, Sternberg had complete editorial freedom. In fact, he has been tasked with writing the policy description for his job. This has not been the only article that he was the sole editor for, and there were no complaints about the others. Again, while this might not have been "typical" it was NOT CONTRARY TO POLICY.

Upon review of the issue, the president of the BSW agreed with Sternberg that the paper had undergone sufficient peer review and that Sternberg was scientifically justified in doing so.