note from a nameless journal editor

Music: Marconi Union: Tokyo

Today I received a note from a journal editor regarding the most unbelievably bad publication proof I've ever received. I like how a delay in publication is dangled out there (is it a threat? surely not . . . ):

09-Sep-2009

JOURNAL-2008-047 - [Essay Title]

Dear Dr. Gunn:

We are in receipt of your multiple messages and attachments regarding the copy editing phase of your manuscript. As you know, my intervention was crucial in moving this essay into publication in this journal. Once articles are accepted, we work assiduously to ensure they come out in the cleanest way possible. The process involves triangulation: here at [midwestern university], at [professional organization], and at [publishing house]. Thus your essay is proofed by about 6 people by the time you get yours copy edits.

There appear to have been two versions of your essay circulating within the system. As the manuscript was originally submitted to another editorial team, we are unable to access the complete trail. However we did find that the uploaded and therefore copy edited version differed from one you submitted. This might explain some of the differences.

Some of the elements of your note can be explained by APA. Especially in regard to the use of numbers, we are following APA guidelines [as we do for all articles]. Some of APA might not be exactly a "humanities" approach [that's what MLA is for] but [journal title] abides by APA. As well, the length of abstract, according to APA, cannot exceed 120 words. [Scholar] at [professional organization] removed 13 words. You can revise your abstract but must stay within 120 words.

At this point we are going to have the the proofreader collate the changes from us, [Scholar at professional organization] and the authors. Should this require more negotiation, we will have to replace article for this issue and continue to take up editing matters for the next volume.

Sincerely,

[Journal Title . . . not a person!]

Wow. Just wow.