In recent years, we have more (and more) frequently called (encouraged, exhorted, cajoled, and even begged) for your Letters to the Editor.
1
, 2
, 3
, 4
, 5
, 6
, 7
, 8
, 9
As evidenced by the Letters in this issue,10
, 11
, 12
, 13
, 14
, 15
, 16
, 17
you have responded. We very much appreciate this because we believe a lively, controversial dialogue will more quickly bring us to ultimate consensus on which treatments are best for our patients.Beginning with this issue of Arthroscopy, we will further emphasize the importance we place on your opinions by moving the Letters to the Editor section to the front of our journal. We believe this makes journalistic sense not only because we feel your letters are of vital importance, but that it is logical for readers to begin by first reviewing a commentary on what has previously been published, and then moving on to our new articles.
We hope this prominent, primary position of our Letters to the Editor section will result in an even more robust reader response, so we hail you once again and say, please send us your letters!
In addition, we aspire to practice what we preach, and thus share some of our own correspondence immediately below.
A previously unpublicized and friendly academic dialogue between Dr. Lubowitz and Dr. Poehling is here revealed:
1 January 2009
Dear Dr. Poehling,
Thank you for your rapid review of and response to my article, “The Best Arthroscopy Research Ever!” However, I believe you have made a small error because your letter suggests that the article was not accepted for publication. I await your immediate correction of this oversight.
Sincerely, James H. Lubowitz, M.D.
3 January 2009
Dear Jim,
I am sorry, but there was no error or oversight. We are unable to accept your article for publication.
Gary
4 January 2009
Dear Gary,
Perhaps you did not understand my article. Did you read the title? This is “The Best Arthroscopy Research Ever!”
With respect, Jim
12 January 2009
Jim,
Your article was subjected to our process of blinded, peer-review. The unanimous consensus of the two Reviewers, the Associate Editor, and your Editor-in-chief is that the article cannot be accepted for publication. This decision is based not only on the quality of your article, but in comparison to the many articles submitted to our journal.
Rejectfully, Dr. Poehling
13 January 2009
Dear Gary,
It seems very obvious that the Reviewers, Associate Editor, and you are confused. It is sad that you fail to appreciate that my article is “The Best Arthroscopy Research Ever!” I recommend that you reconsider your decision, pronto.
Jim
2 February 2009
Dear Jim,
To quote your quoting of J.J.P. Warner, quoting Christian Gerber: “Your research is interesting and original. Unfortunately, the interesting research isn't original, and the original research isn't interesting.” Take a hint: you should change your title to “The Worst Arthroscopy Research Ever.”
Most sincere regards, Gary G. Poehling, M.D., Editor-in-Chief and Your Boss
15 February 2009
Dear Boss,
First, I hope Sandy and you had a wonderful and romantic St. Valentine's day, and that you are both healthy and well. Second, you are totally round the bend. However, I will revise my title as you suggest above; now, will you publish my paper?
Your friend, Jim
3 March 2009
Dear Former Friend Jim,
Sandy and I are just fine, thank you. However, your supercilious syntax, sibilant soliloquies, and senseless, sycophantic simpering are simply seditious. Please cease and desist from this dialogue lest I become annoyed! Send my very best to Gina, and I hope you have a delightful finish to your ski season.
Break a leg, Gary
21 March 2009
Dear Gary,
I can read between the lines. It is obvious that you are beginning to see the merit of my manuscript. I propose you publish “The Best Arthroscopy Research Ever!” as Level V evidence in the next issue.
My cast comes off this summer, Jim
1 April 2009
Dear Jim,
Excellent suggestion.
April Fools! Gary
2 April 2009
Dear Editor,
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. How about my idea of a Level V evidence publication?
Seriously, Jim
14 April 2009
Jim,
In all seriousness you make an excellent suggestion. However, a problem is that Level V evidence represents expert opinion. In this matter, you present amateur, inexperienced, unskilled, untrained, unknowledgeable, and decidedly inexpert opinion. Let us drop the matter. In addition, I am rewarding you with a permanent vacation from the position of Assistant Editor-in-chief without pay.
Enjoy your time off, GGP
4 June 2009
Dear Dr. Poehling,
Thank you for your response. Am I correct to assume that my article, “The Best Arthroscopy Research Ever!” will not be accepted for publication in Arthroscopy? I ask this question, because it seems like this might be what you are trying to say.
Enjoying the beach, JHL
28 June 2009
Jim,
You finally understand.
Gary
29 June 2009
Gary,
Will you reconsider?
Jim
30 June 2009
Jim,
No.
Deborah VanNoy for Dr. Poehling
1 September 2009
Dear Deborah,
With regret, I am writing to inform you that I am withdrawing my original scientific article, “The Best Arthroscopy Research Ever!” from submission to the Arthroscopy journal. However, I am pleased to share with you that the article has been accepted for publication! You may read my article in a forthcoming issue of the American version of the esteemed Journal of Bonny and Jovial Rejections.
Send my very best to Gary and Hank, and let them know that if they ever need a Letters-to-the-Editor Editor, I'm their man, Jim
References
- Clinical relevance: Eight shoulders and a knee.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 571-572
- Two on the fast track: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression with coracoacromial ligament excision.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 2-3
- Mundo grande: Hip clinical diagnosis and journal translation.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 1321-1322
- Keeping up with the literature: Knee ligament, wrist triangular fibrocartilage tear, and suture bridge rotator cuff technique questions.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 1203-1204
- Diagnosis, safety, efficacy: hip and shoulder arthroscopy.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 973
- Summertime blues: ACL rupture, rotator cuff tear, and meniscus tear seem epidemic.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 741-742
- Do basic science articles have clinical relevance?.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 249-250
- A new year.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 2-3
- Hip arthroscopy: An emerging gold standard.Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 1257-1259
- Concerns about the effects of platelet concentrate.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 941-942
- Author's reply.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 942
- Anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 943-946
- Author's reply.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 946-947
- Concerns about management of septic arthritis after acl reconstruction.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 947-948
- Author's reply.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 948
- Failed exploration of rotational instability in single- and double-bundle acl reconstruction.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 949
- Author's reply.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 949-950
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2009 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
