I'm sorry if you feel I misled you about the review process, though it made no difference to the point - that the paper met standards of the journal - and I'm still not convinced myself that Gourley's paper received no peer-review - it doesn't seem right that a technical paper can be published with no such review.
This point was irking me: -
1) as you accused me of being misleading.
2) because it didn't sit right that a technical paper could be published with no peer-review.
I have now had chance to take a closer look at the ASCE review process and realise I should have known better than to accept flyingswan's selective quoting of the guidelines and skewed understanding – god almighty, how many times have I derided him for his lack of English comprehension skills in the past? It was thoroughly naïve on my part to take what he said at face value, though as I mentioned, it made no difference to the argument at the time and didn't seem worth disputing, until arrival of your accusation.
The fact is that Discussion and Closure papers (Gourley's included) are peer-reviewed - the process is simply different to that of a standalone paper, apparently to speed up publishing. Whereas the initial standalone paper must receive two positive reviews to be published, Discussion and Closure papers require only one positive review. That's it. That is the only difference. Any of the papers can be peer-reviewed by the editor(s), who themselves are professionals in the field of engineering and mechanics, or forwarded to an external reviewer deemed fit. Of course having two reviewer approvals is more stringent than only having one reviewer approval, but each are equally and accurately described as a "peer-review".
Please see both links here: -
ASCE Policy on Peer Review
ASCE Discussions and Closures
So Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed – it had to be, to be published, which is the assumption I was working to from the start. I was correct. Flyingswan was incorrect. I trust that you retract your accusation and better consider who may be misleading you in future.