Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy

message: * Sternberg's own paper was published in the annals of the NY Academy of Science. With their reputation, they presumably manage their review process. Sternberg refers to separate criticism received.DLH 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sternberg's Paper Reviewed

message: On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article: 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.  
The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which claims that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/02/title_4.html
As managing editor, Sternberg states he chose to administer the review himself as the most qualified editor in his opinion (having two PhD's in evolutionary biology), rather than involving an associate editor. He claimed to have also checked with a Council member. Sternberg Summary Key Points, 
DLH 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publisher's Review Policies

message: Sternberg describes himself as a process structuralist ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary).http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm Dr. Todd Charles Wood of the Baraminology Study Group describe's Sternberg's skepticism about young earth creationism, but willingness to critique it.http://www.rsternberg.net/BSG.htm Letter from the Baraminology Study Group August 26, 2004
Critics of Meyer's paper believe that Sternberg himself was biased in the matter. In 2002, Sternberg presented a lecture on intelligent design at a conference closed to all but intelligent design advocates.  Sternberg is also a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, an organization with a creationist agenda. These critiques can be considered ad hominem attacks by association.http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/get_busy_livin_or_get_busy_sme.html The Baraminology Study Group's official position is that Sternberg is not a creationist and acts primarily as a skeptical reviewer .
DLH 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "These critiques can be considered ad hominem attacks by association." That's spoon-feeding the reader a particular POV while retroactively trying to poison the well. Even presenting it as an attributed quote is questionable, since it adds nothing but a peripheral viewpoint to narrowly focused article. Whatever terms Sternberg describes himself are beside the point, which is that he's a ID proponent and so had a dog in the race when he decided to step outside the typical editorial practices to see a paper of a fellow traveler published that he knew would stand no chance otherwise. "Sternberg describes himself as a process structuralist ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary)" is a complete non sequitur here. FeloniousMonk 21:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structuralism vs Barminology

message: As part of a subsequent labor claim, Sternberg claims that he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" and cites a letter by the United States Office of Special Counsel as supporting his version of events . Pim Van Meurs and other critics have called into question this claim, asserting that the Office of Special Counsel lacked jurisdiction over the matter, that the Smithsonian was never given a chance to respond, and that no official findings or conclusions were made by the Office of Special Counsel. 
In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg's religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. It was determined that as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, Sternberg was not actually an employee, and thus the Office of Special Counsel had no jurisdiction.
Critics have suggested that the Office of Special Counsel itself was biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the religious right and the Republican Party, with George W. Bush appointee James McVay authoring its opinion.
DLH 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Descrimination Charges

message: Apparently DLH thinks established contributors here have nothing better to do, like actually contributing to the encyclopedia, than to respond to a laundry list of objections and proposals. Most of which are tendentious; twisting the facts to present the possibility that a pro-ID was peer reviewed (never mind that saying something was peer reviewed implies that it was published). 
Considering this method, endorsed by 9 out of 10 trolls and pov pushers at other ID related articles, I'm inclined to move any discussion of additional issues to a subpage to minimize the disruption of this page. Any thought or comments from other long term contributors? FeloniousMonk 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There had been NO discussion at all until I initiated this page noting my changes. After several reverts of major editing efforts I moved the sections here for discussion. Please address. I'll come back after several days.DLH 20:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the article is accurate, well-supported. It's only when an ID proponent showed up trying to spin the facts to imply that there was a properly peer reviewed ID article when there wasn't that discussion became necessary. The fact remains there is no properly peer reviewed ID article in the scientific press, and all personal objections and statements of all of this movement's Sternbergs do not change that fact. Unless you have some actual new, credible and neutral evidence for us to consider here, there's very little here to discuss. You've brought us nothing new. FeloniousMonk 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swamping the talk page 

message: Here is DLH's proposed article structure and section titles:
# Meyer's Paper Published/Withdrawn
# Outside Peer reviewed?
# Publisher vs Editor
# Critics vs Supporters
# Structuralism vs Barminology
# Descrimination Charges
# Notes and references
There are NPOV issues with his section titles. They violate WP:NPOV by imparting undue weight to Sternberg's viewpoint, placing it on par with that of his employer, when it isn't. DLH's choice of verbiage here couchs the controversy in terms favorable to Sternberg and the ID crowd as well.
So, starting with the section Meyer's Paper Published/Withdrawn an obvious issue is that DLH uses rhetoric like "Following a firestorm of protest" then in the next section Outside Peer reviewed? jumps right into Sternberg's rebuttal of his employer's withdrawl of the article before even allowing the reader to see the publishers statement Sternberg is rebutting! DLH also wrongly implies in the section title "Outside Peer reviewed?" that there may indeed be a properly peer reviewed ID paper; a specific goal of the ID movement since its inception. The impetus for the controversy this article describes is that there are none, so I see no reason to help them by implying that there are here. Next, in Publisher vs Editor DLH finally presents the publishers statement that that Sternberg rejects; getting the order backward. 
In the Critics vs Supporters section DLH favors Sternberg supporters by making a link to their writings an actual spelled out part of the content, "Setting the Record Straight on Sternberg", not a footnote or external link as he does for critics. In Structuralism vs Barminology DLH's use of an editorial aside, "These critiques can be considered ad hominem attacks by association," spoon-feeds the reader a particular POV while retroactively poisoning the well. It adds nothing but a peripheral viewpoint to narrowly focused article. "Sternberg describes himself as a process structuralist ahistorical, systems-oriented, and non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary)" is a complete non sequitur and beside the point. The point is that Sternberg is a ID proponent and so had a dog in the race when he decided to step outside the typical editorial practices to see a paper of a fellow traveler published that he knew would stand no chance otherwise.
Descrimination Charges, aside from misspelling discrimination, isn't so bad since DLH more or less used the existing content. Notes and references balance problems arise when DLH favors pro-Sternberg cites with full descriptions instead of the conventional footnote style cites I've seen him do elsewhere. 
 
That covers my initial objections quickly looking over DLH's proposals. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DLH's proposed changes to content & structure  

message: I think this piece might provide some useful info for the article. Some highlights:
I apologise if this piece has already been brought up. Hrafn42 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palaeontological Association Newsletter piece on Meyer article 

message: The article quotes Sternberg,
:"four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication"
and goes on to say,
: "Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them."
One of the four is identified: it is Sternberg himself, contributing the double doctorate to the cited total. The article should make this clear. There were not four outside reviewers. 
Speaking of identification of reviewers, 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. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a WP:RS for this? It's definitely something that should be in the article. Being both sole editor & peer-reviewer of and article by somebody with whom you have links is ludicrously incestuous. Hrafn42 04:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI Wes: Here's an interesting Sternberg presentation on the Discovery Institute site:  Odd nature 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sternberg identifying reviewers 

message: According to Sternberg's website he is still a Research Associate at the SI.  Their website still shows him as a RA butit indicates his appontment term was 5-Jan-04 to 4-Jan-07 which suggests he is no longer a RA there or their webisite is not up to date.  I might not have read the article closely enough but his current status with the SI is not clear to me. Can anyone confirm his current SI status?  Feel free to let me know if I'm missing the obvious.  Angry Christian (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind I did some digging and answered my own question.  I also updated the article to shed some light on the details concering his SI appointment dates and the SI policy on research associates, both seem highly relevant to me. Angry Christian (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I gots me a question (is he or isn't he)

message: I posted similar comments on the talk page of the Expelled article, but here's an observation.  The lead sentence reads:
The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the controversial concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.
To me this says publishing an ID paper was the crime, and later they suspected ("questions") an editorial procudure was circumvented (or ignored). 
Yet when I read the lead of the journals statement: 
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
I get the distinct impression that first and foremost an editorial procedure was not followed, they are convinced the editorial procedure was ignored (they would know better than any 3rd party)).  The fact that the paper was ID seems secondary to the fact an editorial policy was ignored.  The paper could have been about healing magnets or curing cancer with crystals, anything non-scientific would qualify.  I'm not sure and perhaps I'm splitting hairs but to me the Wiki lead does not match the journal's comments as precisely as it could.  And again, judging by their own comments it would seem the primary issue is ignoring the typical editorial process, the secondary issue is the paper was about ID/creationism/preudoscience.  
And to be clear, I am not trying to downplay the significance that the paper was ID/nonsense.  Only that my reading of the journal's statements tells me their editorial practice was ignored and also the paper was about id (non-science) and I think the lead sentence could use some precision in reflecting that.  Make sense? Angry Christian (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being about ID isn't a "crime", but the paper would have gotten closer scrutiny and the resulting controversy more publicity because it was about ID. This is a controversy because the paper was of poor quality, and the internal editorial and external peer-review processes highly suspect and subverted by a clear conflict of interest. It is a major controversy (and thus one worthy of its own article) because it was an ID paper -- so ID does warrant prominent mention in the lead. If you can think of a way to better express this, then you're welcome to try. HrafnTalkStalk 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and improve it when I get a few spare minuts, I don't have strong feelings about it so if my changes don't read like an improvment I won't get my feelings hurt if it's reverted.  It's a logical order of the statements in the lead mainly.  To me the editorial process being ignored goes first, the ID element goes second.  Pretty simple change in my mind.  Angry Christian (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to increase the prominence of "editorial process" in the lead, you should keep in mind that the problems with that included (i) the article being on a subject (the Cambrian explosion), well out side the journal's subject area and (ii) Sternberg's (the sole editor who looked at it) lack of expertise in the article-subject (which is in palaeontology); as well as the irregularities, conflict of interest and poor article quality I alluded to above. HrafnTalkStalk 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I come in peace

message: It is therefore completely unexceptional to mention Sternberg's ISCID membership in this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAAS on the connection between Sternberg's ISCID membership and controversy 

message: I'm deleting the sentence, "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers," from below the third quote box in "The peer review process."  Sternberg clearly stated, "Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper;..."  Three.  I'm quoting his more complete statement, bolding the parts pertinent to the question.
The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")
Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.
After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. 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. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. 
Please note that I am not passing judgment on the veracity of Sternberg's statement, but only making sure that we accurately represent what he states.  (Since "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers," is not referenced, it would seem that was OR, anyway, and so disallowed.) Yopienso (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored both. They are long-standing and well-sourced, and I'm not finding your reasoning here compelling. Please make a case on the talk page before deleting any long standing sourced content here. Also, I note you're working on your talk page with one of the long running pro-ID editors of this topic. Please consider your sources before proceeding. Odd nature (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Odd nature.  Notice above, I did make a case here before deleting.  So far you're the only editor who has commented;  thank you for your interest.  Here's how I see things:
1.  "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers" seems to be unfounded and WP:SYN.  The excerpt very clearly states "Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper..."  How does that imply four?
2.  The comments about who reviewed a paper of Sternberg's are irrelevant to who reviewed Meyer's.  I see no reason to include them.  Whether they are long-standing and/or well-sourced doesn't matter since they don't pertain to the article. (Now that I've looked, the allegations seem to be unsourced.  That certainly doesn't mean they're untrue.)
3.  Did you intend to include this sentence twice?  "The Discovery Institute is the hub of the intelligent design movement." (Oh--I see Aunt Entropy has fixed this since I started writing.  The sentence still occurs again later.)
4.  I'm not "working" with anyone on this topic except that in a general sense I'm working with everyone.  An editor left an unsolicited note on my talk page and I responded.  We've had no prior nor subsequent communication.  I do want to collaborate with you and all comers on improving this article.  
Please reconsider my points:  Did Sternberg say three or four?  Does who may have reviewed a paper of Sternberg's from two years earlier have anything to do with his publishing Meyer's paper?  Yopienso (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The article was clear, accurated and well-supported prior to your appearance and despite your take on it in my opinion. In reply to your points: 1.) Sternberg's own words "four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication" clearly implies four reviewers, meaning stating "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers" in this topic is not only not a WP:SYN violation, but necessary for a complete description of the issue. 2.) Sternberg refuses to identify the reviewers of Meyer's paper, meaning who reviewed Sternberg's paper are relevant, particularly when you see that he favored fellow creationists and his relationship to creationist Meyer and the creationist Discovery Institute. 3.) The passage being included twice is an error. One that would not have occurred if the article had not been whitewashed. 4.) Your comments to the party in question say otherwise. Odd nature (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe you're missing the word "outside" here, meaning besides himself.  Sternberg explained there were three besides himself, and he made a fourth.  It's very clear.  Wikipedia sounds silly when quoting, "Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper;.." followed by "one...another...a third...." and then alleging, "Sternberg's statement implies that there were four outside reviewers."  Our quote omits (in the ellipsis between "publication" and "four") "I too...,"  bringing the tally to four and making abundantly clear that Sternberg was not claiming there were four outside reviewers. "...the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement,..." appears again in the Criticism section.  Do we want that twice?Please remember WP:OR and WP:SYN, which disallow the mention of who reviewed Sternberg's paper: 
The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5]  "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
  I'm hoping some other editors will help us find our way here. Yopienso (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: "Long standing" is not a reason to keep information on the page.  It's complicated to track the diffs, but I'll give it a go soon.  Many of the changes that were reverted were my own, and erased things like small wording choices (the replacement of "controversial" with "discredited Creationist concept" in this edit) as well as larger changes such as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues (in the same edit).  While I appreciate things like the replacement of sources I removed by accident, I don't appreciate the removal of citation templates and other incremental changes.  I agree with Yopienso that there do appear to be several OR issues on the page, and will try to do the review later today.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is, especially when users in good standing crafted it years ago. And sorry about your incremental changes, but if they hadn't been added to the white washed version they would still be in there. Let's spend more time defending against white washes and less on adding templates. If there's any unsourced OR, I'm not seeing it. Odd nature (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about who reviewed Sternberg's paper was added by Felonious Monk  July 2, 2006.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sternberg_peer_review_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=61703533  All this time the surname of one of the reviewers has been misspelled, but that doesn't mean it can't be corrected now.  Wikipedia wants verifiably accurate material and does not want "A + B = C" no matter if the material in question is long-standing. Can anyone give me a good reason not to delete that section and the sentence about four reviewers?  Yopienso (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nearly four years ago, and the policies and guidelines have changed significantly since then.  In addition, longevity is not a reason for an edit to remain - adherence to the policies and guidelines is.  Since the page is about the Sternberg peer review controversy, we should only retain information specific to that issue - not related to Sternberg in general unless it is contextualized explicitly by a source.  WP:BLP is still a concern, even if the page is not exclusively regarding a person.  There are a lot of sources, I'd rather leave out the OR (particularly when the information given by the sources is so damning without the need to cobble together aspersion, allusion and innuendo).  It's pretty clear that Sternberg is some form of ID/creationist, that's all that needs to be said for the context of the paper.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited Felonious Monk to come by and offer his two cents.  Yopienso (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two comments - based on his contribution history, he looks substantially retired.  Second, though he can provide a bit of context and discussion, ultimately it's about the policies and guidelines, not longevity or who the contributor was.  If he can't justify the edits by reference to the P&G, or there is no consensus to ignore all rules particularly WP:OR and WP:BLP, then I still believe the text should be removed.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked to me that he'd been gone since July, 2008, but upon nosing around, I found a contribution from this April.  Can't remember where I found it!  :O  (Hmm, now I wonder if that was April 2008.)  This is a courtesy I'm extending him because of the great deal of work he's done at Wikipedia. I was thinking to remove the bits within a day or two if there is no further comment. I'm not sure if the two of us form a consensus, but it's definitely a majority so far. You are of course free to edit as you see fit. Yopienso (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go--he was on just yesterday.  Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL--forgot the link.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FeloniousMonk  Yopienso (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm deleting the questionable items.  Yopienso (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "It's pretty clear that Sternberg is some form of ID/creationist, that's all that needs to be said for the context of the paper."--that's a can of worms I've been loath to open.  Will do so on the Talk: Richard Sternberg page.  Yopienso (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Welcome, Felonious Monk!  I was looking for you a few months ago.  Please read my edit summaries of 03:56 24 April, 3 May, and 07:17 2 June of this year, and read this section, add any comments you may have, and wait for a consensus before editing what I just reverted. Thanks!  --Yopienso (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of reviewers

message: I am proposing that Richard Sternberg be merged here (as discussed in the recent AfD on that article), per WP:MERGE rationale 'overlap' (more than half of that article is on this controversy) and WP:BLP1E. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sternberg peer review controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20050204153452/http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm with https://web.archive.org/web/20050306180309/http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm on http://www.rsternberg.net/Procedures.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040714104028/http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php to http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sternberg peer review controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214210656/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214210656/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070111101133/http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf to http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/AppendixtoReportIntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425194351/http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf to http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified