8/3/2019 Response to Reviewers What You Really Feel

1/2

~ DearSir, Madame, r Other:Enclosed s our latestversionofMs # 85-02-22-RRRRR,hat s, there-re-re-revisedevision of our paper.Chokeon it. We haveagainrewritten the entire manuscript rom start o finish. We evenchangedthe goddamn unning head!Hopefully we havesufferedenoughby now tosatisfy evenyou and your bloodthirsty eviewers. shall skip the usualpoint-by-point descriptionof every singlechangewe made n responseothe critiques.After all, it is fairly clear hat your reviewersareless nterestedn detailsof scientificprocedure han n working outtheirpersonality roblems ndsexualrustrationsy seeking ome ind ~cof demented glee in the sadistic and arbitrary exercise of tyrannical ~poweroverhelpless uthorsike ourselves hohappeno fall ipto heir 'clutches.We do und~rst~d that, n view of the misanthr.opic sychopaths you have on your edItonalboard,you need o keepsendIng hem papers, for if they weren't eviewing manuscriptshey'dprobablybe out muggingold ladiesor clubbing baby seals o death.Still, from this batchofreviewers,C was clearly the most hostile, andwe request hat you notaskhim or her to review this revision. ndeed,we havemailed etterbombs o four or five peoplewe suspected f being eviewerC, so f yousend he manuscriptback o them he review process ould be undulydelayed.Someof the reviewers'commentswe couldn'tdo anythingabout.~ For example, f (as eview C suggested) everalof my recentancestorswere ndeeddrawn from other species,t is too late o change hat.Other suggestions ere mplemented, owever,and he paperhas mprovedandbenefited.Thus,you suggestedhat we shorten he manuscriptby 5pages,and we were able o accomplish his very effectively by alteringthe marginsandprinting the paper n a different font with a smaller ".typeface.We agreewith you that the paper s muchbetter his way. Oneperplexingproblemwas dealingwith suggestions 13-28by ReviewerB. Asyou may recall (that s, if you evenbother eading he reviewsbeforedoing your decision etter), hat reviewer isted 16 works that he/shefelt we shouldcite in this paper.Thesewere on a variety of differenttopics, noneof which had any relevance o our work that we could see.Indeed,one was an essayon the Spanish-AmericanWar from a high schoolliterary magazine.The only common hreadwas hat all 16 were by thesameauthor,presumably omeonewhom ReviewerB greatlyadmiresandfeels shouldbe more widely cited. To handle his, we havemodified theIntrodu~tion~d added,~fter he review of :elevant itera~e, asubsectIon entItled "ReVIew of Irrelevant LIterature" that dIscussesthesearticlesand also duly addressesomeof the more a,sinine .suggestionsn the other eviews.We hope hat you will be pleasedwith this revision andwill finallyrecognizehow urgently deservingof publication his work is. If not,then you are an unscrupulous, epravedmonsterwith no shredof human(\ decency.You ought o be n a cage.May whateverheritageyou come rom~-

8/3/2019 Response to Reviewers What You Really Feel

2/2

,r'\ be hebutt of thenext oundof ethnicokes. f you do acceptt,- however,we wish to thank you for your patienceandwisdom hroughoutthis process nd o express ur appreciationf yourscholarlynsights.To repayyou, we would be happy o review somemanuscriptsor you;pleases~ndus the next manuscripthat ~y of these eviewerssu?mitsto your ournal. Assummgyou accept hISpaper,we would also hke toadd a footnote acknowledging our help with this manuscriptand o pointout that we liked the papermuch better he way we originally wrote itbut you held the editorial shotgun o our headsand orced us to chop,reshuffle, estate,hedge,expand,shorten,and n generalconvertameatypaper nto stir-fried vegetables.We couldn't, or wouldn't, havedone t without your input.Sincerely,

~~"

.

r---'

.