Let's see how they respond:

Dear Cosmo / Wanda,

I'm a little confused about your name and role, since line one of your note (below) seems to state that this note is from Cosmo, who is the editor of REM, but the signature says this note is from Wanda, who is the editor of REM. Was your day a little topsy-turvy, perhaps?

But hey, let's set aside that minor confusion: which parts of my paper did you like best? Was it the endorsement of the collective ownership of the means of production that really struck you? Or was it the strong position I took against female circumcision?

Gene Callahan

On Mar 29, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Wanda Petty wrote:

Dear Gene Callahan,
I’m Cosmo Johnson, the editor of Research in Economics and Management (REM) ISSN 2470-4407(Print) ISSN 2470-4393(Online). I have had an opportunity to read your paper “Morgan, Mary S. 2012., The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 2012. xvii + 421 Pages. $44.99” which is published in Austrian Economics, The Review of, and can tell from your work that you are an expert in this field.
We are calling for submission of papers. Please find the journal’s profile at: and submit your manuscripts online, you can also submit your manuscripts to If you have any questions, please contact with the editor at:
It is appreciated if you could share this information with your colleagues and associates. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Wanda Petty 
Research in Economics and Management 


  1. He/she only said "I have had an opportunity to read your paper ". He never said he had actually read it.

  2. Wow, I am not sure why but this surprises me. I'd have bet big bucks you were actually against public ownership of the means of female circumcision.

  3. Have you considered submitting a random word salad generated by AWK to see what happens?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fair's fair!

More college diversity and tolerance