I am reviewing your latest submission. I note with great interest your claim that 2+2=5. I tracked down the paper in which you first made this claim, which was published in [Science or Nature] over a decade ago.Yours truly,
Leaving aside the fact that none of the humpty-jillion reviewers of your [Science or Nature] paper noticed that 2+2≠5, I wonder why you, a veritable luminary, did not notice it yourself. After all, you did not publish the fact that 2+2=5 just once, but in nearly every paper since the [Science or Nature] paper appeared.
You make me cry. I am embarrassed for you.
With utmost respect, I remain
Referee Number 4
7 comments:
Is this a sanitized version of something real that happened?
It's obvious that 2+2=5. The consensus is right. Democracy roolz.
Was this paper written by the gecko mentioned in the disclaimer on your blog?
Of course not, faded. Clearly it was written by one of the rhesus monkeys!
Please tell me you wrote your colleague exactly this. You're anonymously reviewing this person's article for possible journal publication, right? And does your colleague need a note like this? :-P
Oh! I've been looking for some references to cite to back up MY claims that 2+2 could also equal 6! Send me those references would ya'
Sadly, chances are that the paper will make it through adding to the literature yet another piece of "evidence" that 2+2=5. As a reviewer, I've seen it happen powerlessly about a year ago... Seriously, editors?
Post a Comment