Monday, February 23, 2009

Clever Post Title (Asshole et al. 2008: 632)

Are you fucking kidding me motherfucker? Great manuscript review Dr. Asshole. I am so pleased that you have granted my manuscript your stamp of approval. You have managed to ruin my brief moment of happiness when I saw the word “accepted” with your egocentric ramblings. I really appreciate that your primary point of concern regards my lack of citing YOU. Because, now that I think about it, I DID write that piece and I DID complete all that research for the purpose of highlighting your barely relevant sojourns into the topic. Motherfuck. I gave you a token reference, that’s really all I am willing to do. Did it ever occur to you that IF your publications said anything remotely useful I would have cited them? Did you want me to cite you along the lines of “This topic has received scant attention because various researchers are too lazy to seriously address the issue (e.g., Asshole 1989, 1992a, 1992b, 2006)” is that what you want? I am at the end of my rope here (Asshole & Shinola 2004). Look, I just dedicated this entire post to you (i.e., Asshole 2001: 4). Happy now?

11 comments:

  1. Yeah, I cited the sorry fuck too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But congrats on the acceptance!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, but what do you do when the paper is just bad, bad, and worse? Usually it isn't citations, but bad methods and lousy ideas. Yeah, I'll squeeze one more paper out of this project...because I'm worth it. Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Acceptance, even from a diva, is still better than rejection. I once had a reviewer say something along the lines of, "This is a fine piece of work, but I think that his entire subfield is illegitimate, so I am going to reject it."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could rant endlessly on the various abuses of peer review...but I am trying to be nice today.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OK, I'm going to fess up on this. I have just rejected two papers for two different journals. They were bad. No problems with the field, etc. But they were badly written and badly thought through. Too bad to rescue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Standing ovation from my corner -- both for the post and the acceptance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know if you already saw this, but here is another take on the same theme, which I rather enjoyed. I also realise that you know how this game is played and are venting here and probably did all the stuff mentioned, but it's still funny.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Funny indeed (and painfully true)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've obviously been away from blog reading too long that I missed this one. It's priceless- I'll never understand why reviewers- if they are going to accept a paper anyway- feel that they must rain on the parade at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our theory іs thаt liκe Kіm Κaгdaѕhіan, West faсed an uρhill battlе.
    Faѕhion-Aid iѕ the neωest anԁ most
    еffeсtіve wаy to fix the slіp аnԁ κeep clothes
    гight where you wаnt to sеe а beѵy οf beautіful gowns.
    fаshion-Aiԁ is а hуpoallergenic,
    сleаг liquiԁ аԁheѕive that waѕhеs off ωith water and ωon't stain clothes. This website also sells a whole lot of money.

    my web site ... Thoi trang nam (http://docs.joomla-ua.org/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87:ColbyEver)

    ReplyDelete