Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
ID in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of WashingtonSummary of the Sternberg saga
The article doesn't list the key phrase "intelligent design!"The quarterly Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a relatively obscure journal known primarily to a subgroup of taxonomists. According to WorldCat, 261 libraries catalog the journal, though some subscriptions including that of the (local) University of Nebraska have expired. It achieved celebrity status when it published Stephen C. Meyer's "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories". Meyer's CV can be seen here). A cursory glance at the table of contents shows "The Origin..." to be out of character with the general run of articles.
Of immediate interest was how Proceedings came to publish Meyer's article. The Scientist concluded that Editor in Chief, Richard Sternberg, was a creationist. The Panda's Thumb gave extensive coverage and even Wingnut and Objective Ministries took note. See also the review by Gishlick, et al at Talk Reason. Most recently the Biological Society of Washington announced irregularities in the review of the Meyer article. The Proceedings was still recovering from the recent Mock Turtle scandal. The society consequently revised its editorial protocol and created a website with a specific statement about the Meyer article.
Nature takes note; is the article published because of it's high quality, or because of the poor quality of the Journal?. The Discovery Institute responds to NCSE, but fails to address the question of what constitutes legitimate peer review. Further rhetoric from the Discovery Institute. Yet more rhetoric from the DI, and more, more.
Richard Sternberg responds, Reflections on Sternberg
The Wall Street Journal sees religious persecution (taking peer review literally),
"Tainting of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" in Palaenotology Newsletter
Southern Baptists easily sucked in by DI hype, The Washington Post reflects
If ID is more than rhetoric, its publications should make predictions leading to research and ultimately networks of publications in high impact journals.
Why ID isn't science