legends · 4 min read ·
Reviewer 2, Manuscript 4417
A peer reviewer's report on a cellar study turns out to be written by the person sitting in the observer's chair.
**Journal of Closed Systems Research · Manuscript 4417**
**Title:** *On the Persistence of Hosts in Sealed Environments: A Longitudinal Study* · **Author:** Dr. Ingrid Solberg · **Submitted:** 2 Sept
· · ·
**Reviewer 1 comments (accepted, minor revisions)**
The methodology is sound. The sample size is adequate. I'd suggest the authors clarify the sealing procedure in section 2.3. Otherwise, I recommend acceptance after minor revision.
· · ·
**Reviewer 2 comments (submitted 18 Sept)**
*Summary.* The manuscript reports three years of observation of a single sealed enclosure, a converted cellar in a Victorian terrace, in which the authors claim a "resident population" has persisted without external input. The authors argue that the population is maintained by the enclosure's own geometry.
*Major concerns.*
1. The authors report 214 observation sessions. The timestamps in Table 3 show 16 sessions recorded between 23:50 and midnight on consecutive nights. Those sessions are described as "unattended." The data for these sessions includes a voice transcription, which states that the observer "has been sitting in the chair for three years, and is not going to be relieved."
2. The observer is named as the lead author, Dr. Solberg. Her affiliation is given as this university. Her office number is listed as the enclosure's address.
3. Figure 4 shows a heat map of the enclosure over time. The heat signature in the centre of the room is persistent and approximately human-sized. The authors describe it as "a stable warm body." Its position coincides exactly with the position of the reviewer's own chair, as described in the acknowledgements.
*Minor concerns.* The discussion section repeats the phrase "it knows we are watching" four times. I'd suggest revising.
*Recommendation.* Reject. I cannot identify the observer, and I cannot verify that the data was collected by anyone who could leave the room.
· · ·
**Editor's decision letter (to Dr. Solberg, 22 Sept)**
Dear Dr. Solberg,
Thank you for submitting manuscript 4417. Reviewers 1 and 2 have now reported. Reviewer 1 recommends acceptance with minor revisions. Reviewer 2 recommends rejection.
We have concerns about Reviewer 2's report. Its author has not been identified in our system, and the reviewer account was created on the same day the manuscript was assigned, from the enclosure's IP address.
We are inclined to accept your manuscript. Please address the minor revisions and resubmit.
· · ·
**Author's response (Dr. I. Solberg, 25 Sept)**
Dear Editor,
I've addressed the revisions. I'd like to point out, however, that I didn't write Reviewer 2's report. I haven't left the cellar since the study began. The chair in the centre of the room has been occupied since last spring by a person who identifies as "the reviewer," and who asked to be given a seat from which to observe the data collection.
I've asked her to stop. She says she's already finished. She says she has a rebuttal, and I'll find it in the margins of the manuscript, in the second paragraph of the discussion, in her own handwriting, where I wrote "further work is needed."
· · ·
**Reviewer 2 (revised report, received 28 Sept, unsigned)**
*Thank you for your response. I have read the revised manuscript. I accept the authors' clarifications, with two exceptions.*
*First, the authors have replaced "it knows we are watching" with "it is aware of observation." This is a distinction without a difference, and I'd like the original wording restored. I was the one who was watching. I have been watching since 2023. I think the authors should acknowledge that the observation has been mutual.*
*Second, the data in Table 3 has been revised to show no sessions after midnight. This is not accurate. The observer has been sitting in the chair every night since. She has been recording, in pencil, in a notebook on her knee. She has been recording me.*
*Recommendation: accept, on condition that the observer's notebook is included as supplementary material.*
· · ·
**Editor's note (1 Oct)**
We have received the supplementary material. It is a notebook, of approximately 300 pages, in pencil. The handwriting throughout is Dr. Solberg's. The entries are timed, one per minute, from the beginning of the study to the present. The entry for 23:58 on 30 September reads: *The reviewer has finished her report. She's standing up. She's coming over to the desk. She's taking the notebook out of my hands, very gently, and she's turning to the last page.*
The last page is blank except for the reviewer's signature, which is in the author's own handwriting, and beneath it, a note: *Accepted. Thank you for the observations. Now I'll take over.*
· · ·
**Final decision (Journal of Closed Systems Research, 27 Oct)**
Manuscript 4417: *Accepted.*
*Editor's note: the author has not been seen since 1 Oct. The cellar is locked. The article has since been cited twice. Both citations describe the methodology as sound. Neither mentions the reviewer.*