06-03-2008, 11:02 AM
jackson Wrote:OK -- I looked in my archival folders, and found the communications in question. The whole thing started at 5/4/2004, when James announced his paper was accepted by the journal. Then it turned sour on 5/7/2004 when the journal then claimed they had a clerical error. James sent to the list the acceptance email the journal had originally sent him -- and it appears it wasn't a clerical error, but a "back peddle" on the journal's part. The whole thread goes on for a few days after that, ending with James agreeing to revise his paper and move on.
There's no "misrememberance" here -- I tend to save my emails. Even the elist ones. This case was no exception.
Hmm, I notice that the person whose rage you described as "appears to border on psychosis" seemed to understand the question and was able to provide a clear, concise, direct and responsive answer.
On the other hand, your responses so far suggest that your mega-intellect isn't quite grasping the questions. Let's try again.
1. Was Harris's paper reviewed?
a) Yes
b) No
2. If the answer to the previous question is "Yes," identify the person or persons who reviewed it.
3. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes," were any errors found in the paper?
a) Yes
b) No
