2岁孩子总是frustrated发脾气# Parenting - 为人父母
l*n
1 楼
学校一教授转发给我们的。。。太搞笑了。。。
Dear Sir, Madame, or Other:
Enclosed is our latest version of Ms. #1996-02-22-RRRRR, that is the re-
re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have again
rewritten the entire manuscript from start to ®nish. We even changed the
g-d-running head! Hopefully, we have sured enough now to satisfy even
you and the 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 anonymous reviewers are less interested in the details of
scientific procedure than in working out their personality problems and
sexual frustrations by seeking some kind 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 you have on your editorial
board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they were not
reviewing manuscripts they would probably be out mugging little 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 him to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombs
to four or ®ve 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 could not do anything about. For
example, if (as C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeed
drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other
suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has been improved
and benefited. Plus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript
by five pages, and we were able to accomplish this very effectively
by altering the margins and printing the paper in a dirent 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 sending your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works that
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 whom 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 the relevant
literature, a subsection entitled ``Review of Irrelevant Literature''
that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more
asinine suggestions from other reviewers.
We hope you will be pleased with this revision and will 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 for 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 submits to this
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 the paper much better the way we originally submitted it, but you
held the editorial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshu‚e,
hedge, expand, shorten, and in general convert a meaty paper into stir-
fried vegetables. We could not ± or would not ± have done it without
your input.
Dear Sir, Madame, or Other:
Enclosed is our latest version of Ms. #1996-02-22-RRRRR, that is the re-
re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have again
rewritten the entire manuscript from start to ®nish. We even changed the
g-d-running head! Hopefully, we have sured enough now to satisfy even
you and the 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 anonymous reviewers are less interested in the details of
scientific procedure than in working out their personality problems and
sexual frustrations by seeking some kind 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 you have on your editorial
board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they were not
reviewing manuscripts they would probably be out mugging little 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 him to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombs
to four or ®ve 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 could not do anything about. For
example, if (as C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeed
drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other
suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has been improved
and benefited. Plus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript
by five pages, and we were able to accomplish this very effectively
by altering the margins and printing the paper in a dirent 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 sending your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works that
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 whom 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 the relevant
literature, a subsection entitled ``Review of Irrelevant Literature''
that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more
asinine suggestions from other reviewers.
We hope you will be pleased with this revision and will 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 for 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 submits to this
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 the paper much better the way we originally submitted it, but you
held the editorial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshu‚e,
hedge, expand, shorten, and in general convert a meaty paper into stir-
fried vegetables. We could not ± or would not ± have done it without
your input.
