Peer Review of “A Conclusive Scientific Inquiry…”

So, Brody, you want to play science with the big boys? Then that means you’ll have to submit your research for peer review. Fortunately for you, I used my clout within the penile science community to fast-track your latest article for review at the Annals of Penis Science, and I just got their response back today. Let’s have a look, shall we?

To the editorial committee of the Annals of Penis Science
Referee report on
“A Conclusive Scientific Inquiry Into the Latent Homosexuality of Dr. Richard Cox.”
by Brody J. Dickworth
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Referee #1:

First of all, I note that there are no the author’s University, University’s address or the author’s e-mail address in the submitted paper. To put those in the paper is a matter of course.

Next, in third paragraph, the author’s statements about the Dodge Ram are very misleading. For instance, the author omits to mention the gas milage of Dodge Ram compare very poorly to Japanese vehicle.

Moreover, in fourth paragraph the author says: “[Richard] had to have successfully copulated with the woman who bore him his daughter”. However, the author provides no evidence of DNA paternity test. To perform such a DNA test is a matter of course.

The submitted paper also lack many references. The author refers extensively to the methodology of Aristotle, but does not give citation to any paper of Aristotle, nor Aristotle’s University, University’s address or the Aristotle’s e-mail address in the submitted paper.

Furthermore, the author claims: “many heterosexuals…have fondled the genitalia of a passed out man to see if that man was gay,” but does not give citation to one of the numerous papers on animal homosexuality by eminent penis researcher Sokudiku, such as “Apparent Homosexual Behavior in D. Rotunda“. In fact, there are many instance throughout the submitted paper in which the author should cite the work of Sokudiku. I do not know why the author does not cite Sokudiku. This reflects very poorly on the author.

Besides, throughout the submitted paper there are many incorrect sentences and incorrect expressions. So I don’t know if the results in the submitted paper are correct. The main result in the submitted paper is the homosexuality of researcher Richard Cox. But even if it is correct, I cannot say it is a new result. Because Sokudiku has already shown this as a special case in his paper “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in Canadian Penis Scientists”!

Therefore, I cannot recommend the submitted paper to be published in your journal. I hope the author studies hard and write the paper more carefully.

References (Sokudiku’s paper)
1993 : Apparent Homosexual Behavior in D. Rotunda (Acta Peenologica)
2000 : Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in Canadian Penis Scientists (Kyoto Journal of Penile Engineering)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Referee #2:

Though the author’s thesis is likely correct in a banal, purely technical sense, the choice of subject matter illustrates the state of decadence into which modern penis science has fallen. Clearly, the Penis is dead, or at the very least rendered sterile and impotent.

I will indulge this exercise in nausea for but a moment longer, if only so that it can be overcome by the scientist of tomorrow. The author has managed to identify Dr. Cox’s Will to Penis as the decisive element in his petty little investigation, but ultimately shies way from the abyss of Dr. Cox’s latent homosexuality. Instead he dives into the Aristotelian ash heap of Raison Pure and declares an empty victory for himself. None of this should come as any surprise, of course. The Aristotelian techniques were rightly overturned by Nietzsche long ago, and I advise the author to familiarize himself with Nietzsche’s “The Gay Science” and “Ecce Homo” before he embarks on another scientific Conquest of this sort.

This paper is full of the spirit of mendacity and should not be published in this journal.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Referee #3

I don’t know what the fuck this is but it’s not science.

With that said, I agree with the author’s position on Richard Cox.

Wow, Brody, you really outdid yourself. I’ve never gone 0 for 3 before. Still, at least they were informative, like the one which said “it’s not science.”

But don’t despair. You might have better luck getting published in a less prestigious journal such as the Annals of Not Science, or the Journal of Amateur Hacks.

Stay Curious,

Dr. Richard Cox, PhD.

Advertisements


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s