Overview:
This article, written by retiring editor Harry Harlow, is a satirical guide for aspiring psychology researchers looking to publish their work. It’s a humorous take on the common practices and pitfalls in academic writing, offering witty advice on crafting compelling introductions, methods, results, and discussions.
Main Parts:
- Covering Letter: The article begins with advice on crafting a persuasive covering letter to the editor, emphasizing the importance of highlighting the research’s significance and flattering the editor.
- Introduction: The introduction is a section for showcasing one’s scholarship, often with a “striptease” technique of withholding the main problem until the very end. It encourages an extensive list of references to impress colleagues, even if they are irrelevant.
- Method: The method section should be clear, orderly, and systematic, but it’s perfectly acceptable to omit important details about the research process and focus on the ideal, rather than the reality of the experiment.
- Results: Results are conveniently placed to allow for the inclusion of omitted methodological details. The article advocates for visually unreadable figures and long, detailed tables to obscure potential discrepancies in the data.
- Discussion: The discussion section is where the author can shoot for the moon, making grandiose claims about their research’s implications and elaborating on predictions made in the introduction. It encourages elaborate descriptions of hypothetical experiments to add length and avoid scrutiny.
- Footnotes: Footnotes offer a final chance to include padding and trivia, with a particular emphasis on using the acknowledgments section to deflect responsibility for any shortcomings in the research.
- Editorial Policy: The article concludes by discussing the editor’s frustration with the influx of uninspired research and his newly implemented “Not read but rejected” rubber stamp policy.
View on Life:
- Academic Life: This article presents a cynical view of academic life, emphasizing the focus on publication, promotion, and self-preservation over genuine scientific inquiry.
- Research Ethics: Harlow satirizes the lack of rigor and honesty in some research practices, suggesting that academic success is often achieved through manipulation and deception rather than genuine scientific contributions.
Scenarios:
- Manuscript Rejection: The article humorously depicts the frustration of manuscript rejections and suggests ways to circumvent the editorial process by flattering the editor and obscuring the data.
- Academic Promotion: The importance of promotion is highlighted, showcasing the lengths authors may go to in order to secure their position.
Challenges:
- Publication Process: Authors face challenges in navigating the complexities of the publication process, including dealing with critical editors and the pressure to produce impactful research.
- Scholarly One-Upsmanship: Researchers are challenged to impress their peers with their scholarship and erudition, leading to the temptation to embellish their work and present a misleadingly impressive picture of their findings.
Conflict:
- Author vs. Editor: There is a perceived conflict between authors and editors, with the author trying to manipulate the system to their advantage, while the editor strives for scientific integrity and quality.
Plot:
- Harlow’s Satirical Guide: The central plot revolves around Harlow’s humorous and satirical guide to the publication process, offering advice that is both insightful and ridiculous.
Point of View:
- Satirical Editor: The article is written from the perspective of a retiring editor, who uses humor to expose the flaws and hypocrisies within the academic world.
- Aspiring Researcher: The article is directed toward aspiring researchers, providing them with a humorous, albeit cynical, guide to achieving success in academic publication.
How It’s Written:
The article uses a conversational and satirical tone, employing humor and irony to highlight the absurdity of certain academic practices. The use of bold font and multiple exclamation marks emphasizes the author’s opinions and exaggerates the importance of certain points. For example, “Remember that promotion is the prerogative of deans and final decisions are frequently weighed on other scales than those of justice.” This sentence is presented in a bold font, emphasizing the author’s cynicism regarding the academic hierarchy and the importance of promotion over scientific merit.
Tone:
The tone is cynical, humorous, and sarcastic. Harlow uses his wit to expose the flaws in the academic publishing system and offers a tongue-in-cheek guide to achieving success by exploiting those flaws.
Life Choices:
The article highlights the choices researchers face in balancing their ethical responsibilities with the pressures of the academic world. The choices are presented as a spectrum between upholding scientific integrity and manipulating the system for personal gain.
Lessons:
- Critical Thinking: The article encourages readers to be critical of the information they encounter in academic journals, recognizing the potential for bias and manipulation.
- Humor in Research: The article demonstrates the power of humor in exposing flaws and raising important questions about the nature of research.
Characters:
- Harry F. Harlow: A retired editor with a satirical perspective on the academic world, offering a humorous guide to research publication.
- The Aspiring Researcher: The intended audience of the article, a young and aspiring researcher looking for guidance on the publication process.
- The Editor: The authority figure in the publishing process, often portrayed as rigid, bureaucratic, and easily manipulated.
Themes:
- The Importance of Integrity in Research: Despite the cynical tone, the article ultimately emphasizes the need for honest and rigorous research practices.
- The Impact of the Publication System: The article explores the influence of the academic publishing system on research practices and its potential to incentivize unethical behavior.
- The Humor in Academia: The article highlights the absurdity of certain academic practices and the role of humor in exposing those flaws.
Principles:
- Satire as a Tool for Criticism: The article exemplifies the use of satire as a powerful tool for criticizing societal norms and exposing hypocrisy.
- The Importance of Perspective: The article encourages readers to approach academic research with a critical perspective, recognizing the potential for bias and manipulation.
Intentions:
- The Author’s Intentions: The author’s intention is to humorously expose the flaws in the academic publishing system and encourage readers to be critical of the information they encounter.
- The Reader’s Intentions: The reader’s intention is to gain insights into the academic publishing process and learn how to navigate it effectively.
Unique Vocabulary:
- “Striptease Technique”: This refers to the act of withholding important information until the very end of the introduction, keeping the reader engaged until the last paragraph.
- “Alibi-in-Advance Technique”: This refers to anticipating criticism by preemptively explaining how the research could have been improved, even if the author doesn’t intend to actually improve it.
Anecdotes:
- The “Not Read But Rejected” Rubber Stamp: This humorous anecdote illustrates the editor’s frustration with the influx of uninspired research and his use of a rubber stamp to expedite the rejection process.
Ideas:
- The Importance of Humorous Perspective: The article suggests that humor can be a valuable tool for critiquing the academic world and exposing its flaws.
- The Need for Ethical Research: The article, despite its satirical tone, ultimately emphasizes the importance of ethical and responsible research practices.
Facts and Findings:
- Harlow’s Tenure as Editor: The article notes that Harlow served as editor of the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology for 12 years.
- The Publication Costs: The article states that the publication costs for this report were borne by the American Psychological Association.
Statistics:
- Number of Manuscripts Reviewed: Harlow notes that he reviewed approximately 2,500 original manuscripts and 2,500 revisions during his time as editor.
Points of View:
- Editor’s Perspective: The article is written from the perspective of a retiring editor, offering a cynical and satirical view of the academic publishing system.
- Aspiring Researcher’s Perspective: The article is directed toward aspiring researchers, providing them with a humorous guide to navigating the academic publishing process.
Perspective:
- Cynical Perspective: The article offers a cynical perspective on the academic world, highlighting its flaws and hypocrisies.
- Satirical Perspective: The article uses humor and irony to expose the absurdity of certain academic practices.