[grep2]

Just in case it is not obvious: These rejection letters are fictional[1], created as collage of negative reviews Santini received. But it's hilarious to read, I agree.

Since the original site where Santini commented on it is gone, probably it's only a question of time until this document becomes internet "truth". Brave new world.

[1]http://bertrandmeyer.com/2009/08/14/rejection-letter-classic...

[tokenadult]

Just in case it is not obvious: These rejection letters are fictional[1], created as collage of negative reviews Santini received.

Thanks for pointing that out. I hope everyone gives your comment the upvote it deserves. That this submission was just a made-up joke was not obvious from

1) the domain currently hosting the document, one of the first things I check on each submission,

2) the submission title (which is NOT the original article title, contrary to the Hacker News guidelines), which sounds much too serious for a title on a joke article,

or

3) the first few comments, which treated the article as though it reported historical facts. Good for you to let us know what the background is.

[larsberg]

Yes, and it also lacks something more important - the original versions of the papers that were rejected!

While I certainly have my quibbles with my peer reviewers from time to time, in every case that I've had a paper reviewed, whether reject or accept the final paper that ended up making publication was a far, far better version than the original. For all we know, the original versions of those papers were poorly-motivated, typo-filled messes, potentially even with grievous errors that were later corrected.

That's certainly been true of some papers that I've provided negative reviews for and have later seen in another form as wonderfully polished gem.

[ISL]

Thank you.