A Response to Reviewer 3
12 November 2012 at 12:10 pm Peter G. Klein 1 comment
| Peter Klein |
Via Christos Kolympiris, a useful model for dealing with Reviewer 3 — and responding to journal editors and referees more generally. Sample:
We hope you will be pleased with this revision and will ®nally 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.
Organizations and Markets 
1.
Jonathon Mote | 13 November 2012 at 11:25 am
It’s funny they said this was anonymously authored. It is a well-known piece by Roy Baumeister written in 1990 for the newsletter of Society for Personality and Social Psychology.