Rejection letters, correspondence, and miscellanea from the otherwise empty annals of the Journal of Universal Rejection.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Readers Reject III: The Results

Congratulations Quintopia for winning our 3rd installment of Readers Reject.  You had the good sense to respect the Editor-in-Chief (more or less).  The winning rejection follows.

Martins-Coelho et al:

Your review of rejection is too limited in scope. You rejected every paper in a single database, but there are many works worthy of analyzing in regard to systematic rejection outside of this database. The "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" is one such work. By citing this work you tacitly accepted it, and therefore I must conclude that your systematic rejection was not nearly as thorough as such a worthy study would call for. In order to improve this work and make it as thorough as it deserves, you should, as my colleague Bob O'H (ghost-writing for Frau Emmons) has pointed out, pre-reject your own submission. Please make these minor revisions and promptly fail to resubmit your paper. If you do not submit it again, I can guarantee that I will recommend to the editorial board that it not be rejected.

No comments:

Post a Comment