>>>>>>> To the Editor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Sir or Madame:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 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 intellectual
>>>>>>> substance 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 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 Professor,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 concluding discussion can be
>>>>>>> shortened by at least 5 pages. Given the fact that the present
>>>>>>> concluding 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.
>>>
>>>>>>> In sum, I'm pleased to inform you that we would be perfectly
>>>>>>> ambivalent about receiving a ninth revision from you.
>>>>>>> Please, however, 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.
>>>
>>>>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prof. Art Kives
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
office phone: (405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu