Nick S writes: This looks like very good advice (I am not an academic; possibly everyone already does this).

Thinking about my own experience of responding to requests at work, the trick is not only having a plan for how to respond but having the discipline to actually do it. I am good at writing nice responses but I admit that sometimes I'm busy and stressed and don't take the time to do so (and it probably would be time well spent)

4. Fully Responsive: I am responsive to every comment. What is a response? This is an art. It's everything I can think of within reason and within scope of the paper and that isn't likely to raise new objections. Mostly it's doing substantially more than just saying, "No we won't." (I call that giving a reviewer the "stiff arm." It doesn't feel good to them, so I don't do it because I want them to like me and my paper.) That doesn't mean do stupid stuff. At the least I explain why I considered the suggestion and decided against it, or refer the reviewer elsewhere for support for my view, etc.

5. Be Nice: I'm often angry at reviewers initially. That's OK! I get through it by letting it out in a mean letter first. I write what I really think of their ideas or how they clearly didn't read the paper. But, that's just for me. I then revise it taking the more appropriate and professional high road. I express gratitude for every comment (with different language): "Thank you." "Good idea." "We concur." "We apologize for the oversight." "What a thoughtful suggestion." "We appreciate the consideration you've given this." "That initially occurred to us too. [Good for when you need to explain why it won't work.]" "That's a reasonable idea." "Yours is an innovative suggestion." ...

Heebie's take: I don't write or review many articles. But for what it's worth, a lot of these seem to apply to reviews as well as responses. I have a sinking feeling that I'm not very good at reviews, based on a recent time where I liked the paper, then read the re-draft and saw that the other reviewers had offered more structural critiques and really improved the paper.

One other thought:

At the end of the day, what I want is for editors/reviewers to read the letter and think, "This looks good, I'll sign off!" A good letter can do that.

It is possible that reviewers improve your paper! I guess that's more of a first review thing, though, and you want the second round to be quick and painless.

I was listening to our city council debate a ban on puppy mills. Specifically, the ordinance would say that pet stores can only source animals from shelters and rescue operations. Apparently this kind of law is becoming more common. It seems like a great idea to me.

In the public comment period, one of the arguments made against the ban is that it will create a black market for puppy mill animals. Afterwards, I was thinking more broadly about the "it will create a black market!" style of argument. It comes up in a wide range of situations, and many where I agree that the thing should be legal: abortion, pot, sex work, off the top of my head. (There is no sex work on the top of my head. Stop it.)

So I was trying to think about when that argument works, and when it doesn't work. Can't you say it about any law? If you make child labor illegal, then employers who just want those nimble little fingers to get things out of the gears of the machine will be forced to hire children on the black market.

My conclusion is that the argument never works. You should just discuss whether the thing should actually be legal. Creating a black market is a secondary problem only when the actual market should be legally available. If the actual thing should be illegal, then the existence of a black market is a law enforcement problem.

Two last thoughts:
1. Maybe this is an obvious, tired observation?
2. I haven't finished listening to the city council meeting, and I don't actually know which way they voted.

This is intended to be our system for checking in on imaginary friends, so that we know whether or not to be concerned if you go offline for a while. There is no way it could function as that sentence implies, but it's still nice to have a thread.

Episode Kobe fourteen.

The substitute teacher shortage. What they are doing at Jammies' school is just sending all the sub-less classes to an auditorium, to be supervised by one lone sadsack, sitting on a stage. At times Jammies has been in zoom meetings with the admin person on the stage, who pauses the meeting to shake their fist at the audience of students and tell them to knock it off, before returning their attention to the meeting. I know other districts have sent fake-chipper emails to parents encouraging them to consider signing up to be a substitute teacher.

I personally land somewhere in between the three following statements:
1. School really, really needs to be in person, for the mental health of students. (And parents of elementary age kids.)
2. It's okay to have a month during an Omicron surge where learning kind of drops off.
3. Surely spending more money on schools could only help.

However for the next 50 years, every attempt to fund anything will be met with cries of inflation and the price of milk, so it was a nice stimulus package while it lasted.

Is an Ed D meaningful in any way? Am I being a snot for looking askance at it, or am I being perceptive?

So how do you assess Biden's first year? Unless I'm forgetting something, he hasn't made any major missteps, as far as I can tell. The year has been frustrating, but I'm not sure what he could have done differently.

I'm kind of annoyed that his ratings are in the shitter. There are lots of problems in this country, but I also don't think there was any magic to work on Sinema and Manchin that wasn't tried, and it was a miracle we even have a majority in the senate in the first place. I suppose the silver lining is that sheer regression to the norm will most likely make it seem like he's on an upward trajectory over the next six months.

We're going to officially say that anything other than trans-supportive statements are not welcome here. This includes statements that may feel like neutral inquiries or academic observations to the person making the comments, as well as overtly negative comments.

I realize that most everyone here would have preferred I say something official like this years ago. It'll take me a few more years to figure out what to say in response to that.