The Loony Bin
(
loonies@bloodaxe.demon.co.uk
)
Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:39:39 +0100
Hiya folks... Another one from Chuck...with so many academic types reading this mail, it ought to get a sympathetic audience... Wishes & Dreams... - ANDREA xx -- ************<andrea@bloodaxe.demon.co.uk>************ ******************<ajc6@ukc.ac.uk>******************* *** *** *** THE LOONY BIN *** *** loonies@bloodaxe.demon.co.uk *** *** *** ***************************************************** **********************ANDROMEDA********************** ------- Forwarded message follows ------- >> To: Editor, Archives of General Psychiatry >> >> Dear Sir, Madame, or Other: >> >> Enclosed is our latest version of MS #85-02-22-RRRRR, that is, the >> re-re-re-revised version of our paper. Choke on it. We have again >> rewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed >> the goddamned running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough by now to >> satisfy even your bloodthirsty reviewers. >> I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single >> change we made in response to the critiques. After all, it is fairly >> clear that your reviewers are less interested in details of scientific >> procedure than in working out their personality problems and sexual >> frustrations by seeking some sort of demented glee in the sadistic and >> arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power over hapless authors like >> ourselves who happen to fall into their clutches. We do understand >> that, in view of the misanthropic psychopaths you have on your editorial >> board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they weren't >> reviewing manuscripts they'd probably be out mugging old ladies or >> clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batch of reviewers, C >> was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you not ask her or >> him to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombs to four >> or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so if you send the >> manuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed. >> Some of the reviewers comments we couldn't do anything about. For >> example, if (as reviewer C suggested), several of my ancestry were >> indeed drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other >> suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has improved and >> benefited. Thus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by 5 >> pages, and we were able to do this very effectively by altering the >> margins and printing the paper in a different font with a smaller >> typeface. We agree with you that the paper is much better this way. >> One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions #13-28 by >> reviewer B. As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the >> reviews before doing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 >> works the he/she felt we should cite in this paper. These were on a >> variety of different topics, none of which had any relevance to our work >> that we could see. Indeed, one was an essay on the Spanish-American War >> from a high school literary magazine. the only common thread was that >> all 16 were by the same author, presumably someone reviewer B greatly >> admires and feels should be more widely cited. To handle this, we have >> modified the introduction and added, after the review of relevant >> literature, a subsection entitled "Review of Irrelevant Literature" that >> discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more >> asinine suggestions by other reviewers. >> We hope that you will be pleased with this revision and finally >> recognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, >> then you are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of human >> decency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from >> be the butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, >> however, we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout >> this process and to express our appreciation of your scholarly insights. >> To repay you, we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; >> please send us the next manuscript that any of these reviewers sends to >> your journal. >> Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnote >> acknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we >> liked this paper much better the way we originally wrote it but you held >> the editorial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshuffle, >> restate, hedge, expand, shorten, and in general convert a meaty paper >> into stir-fried vegetables. We couldn't or wouldn't, have done it >> without your input. >> >> Sincerely, >> >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >> Dear Dr. >> >> Thank you for your thoughtful response to my decision letter concerning >> the above-referenced piece of excrement. >> >> I have asked several experts who specialize in the area of research you >> dabble in to have a look at your pathetic little submission, and their >> reviews are enclosed. I shall not waste my LaserJet ink reiterating >> the details of their reviews, but please allow me to highlight some of >> the more urgent points of contention they raise: >> >> 1. Reviewer A suggests that you cite his work EXCLUSIVELY in the >> introduction. He has asked me to remind you that he spells his name >> with a final "e" (i.e., Scumbage), not as you have referenced him in >> the last version. >> >> 2. Reviewer C indicates that the discussion can be shortened by at >> least 5 pages. Given the fact that the present Discussion is only three >> pages long, I am not certain how to advise you. Perhaps you might >> consider eliminating all speculation and original ideas. >> >> 3. Reviewer D has asked that you consider adding her as a co-author. >> Although she has not directly contributed to the manuscript, she has >> made numerous comments that have, in her view, significantly improved >> the paper. Specifically, she believes that her suggestions concerning >> the reorganization of the acknowledgments paragraph were especially >> important. Please note that she spells her name with an em-dash, and >> not with the customary hyphen. >> >> 4. Reviewer B has asked that I inform you that, even though his >> suggestions were not mentioned in my decision letter, this doesn't mean >> that he is an imbecile. >> >> 5. My own reading of the manuscript indicates that the following >> problems remain: >> >> a. By "running head," we do not mean a picture of your son's face >> with legs attached. Please provide a four- or five-word title for the >> paper that summarizes the report's most important point. May I suggest, >> "Much Ado About Nothing"? >> >> b. Please make certain that you have adhered to APA stylebook >> guidelines for publication format. Please direct your attention to the >> section entitled, "Proper Format for an Insignificant Paper" (1995, p.46). >> >> c. Please submit any revision of the paper on plain, blank stationery. >> >> Submitting the article on Yale University letterhead will not increase your >> chances of having the article accepted for publication. >> >> d. Please doublecheck the manuscript for spelling and grammatical >> errors. Our experience at the Archives is that "cycle-logical" slips >> through most spell-check programs undetected. >> >> e. Although I am not a quantitative scientist, it is my understanding >> that the "F" in F-test does not stand for "f___ing". Please correct the >> manuscript accordingly. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Prof. Art Kives >> >>- ------------------- >> >> If your original submission had been as articulate as your most recent >> letter, we might have avoided this interchange. It is too bad that >> tenure and promotion committees at your university do not have access >> to authors' correspondence with editors, for it is clear that you would >> be promoted on the basis of your wit alone. Unfortunately, it's the >> publication that counts, and I'm sorry to say that the Archives is not >> prepared to accept this revision. We would be perfectly ambivalent >> about receiving a ninth revision from you. >> ================================================================== John C. MacDonald J.MacDonald@nau.edu or jcm2@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu Department of Chemistry, P.O. Box 5698 Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5698 tel: (520)-523-8893 fax: (520)-523-8111