[dan-robertson]

My understanding is that something like the following happened:

1. authors submit a paper with expository sections about (eg) some materials being flammable and others inflammable

2. reviewer tries to explain that they have incorrectly understood the meaning of the terms, explains the meaning carefully and maybe suggests the terms they might mean.

3. Authors copy in the explanation and maybe replace incorrect usages with weird tortured phrases

4. Rejection

Obviously this description reads a little bit silly and things were probably more nuanced in practice. I think I’m probably also being uncharitable towards the authors in the example.

[tremon]

3. Authors copy in the explanation verbatim

4. Rejection

5. Authors replace terms in verbatim copy with weird tortured phrases

6. Authors submit to other journals, get published