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