From time to time I share some tiny part of our vast, varied editorial correspondence. It’s again time. This note arrived today (I have redacted details that might identify the author):
Dear Mr Editor,
I wish to submit my research paper “[REDACTED]” to your journal. I hope my paper is suitable for publication.
I already submitted a paper to AIR about 13 years ago (“[REDACTED]” or something like that): it was refused and answer came 8 minutes after submission. In that circumstance I did congratulate with the editor for this incredible speed, and it was answered to me that (in line with your original policy, I have to say) you were working hard to try and respond even before a paper was submitted. So I did wait some 30 minutes before submitting the attached paper, but I did not receive any answer, so in the end I decided to submit the paper, even if this was rather disappointing to me.
Best regards
[REDACTED]
I replied, a few hours later:
Hi [REDACTED].
I am sorry to be so slow to reject it this time. Consider it rejected.
The idea is funny, but the article did not make me laugh (or think). The most basic problem: [REDACTED]. Most of the [REDACTED] are not in the characteristic patterns that one expects from [REDACTED].
So… better luck next time!
Marc