Write my submission to a scam journal for me!

[traductio]

So yesterday I did not exercise appropriate self-control and responded -- I actually hit send! -- to a spam journal soliciting work I'm entirely unqualified to write. Then, of course, I posted the abstract here. The response was what I had hoped for, and there was much clamoring that we should write the article together, as a collective fora exercise:

I've ignored them every time until today. This one in particular I keep reporting as spam, but to no avail.

My friends were willing to crowdsource the funds to pay for the publication, but I think that'd be taking things a bit too far.

Oh go for it! I'm sure the fora could help crowdwrite it

Oh yes! Please! Pleasepleaseplease! It's beautiful!

Maybe I'll start a thread when I'm done answering emails. I'd love to read it! Plus, it only has to be two pages. We can manage that, right?

(It pained me to write the abstract using the passive voice. I'm a humanities guy who believes in clear, strong sentences!)

So, to get things rolling, the journal is called Neurosurgery and Neurology, two topics about which I know zilch. Here are the title and abstract:

Title: Neurosurgical Tools: Spoons Versus Ice Cream Scoops

Abstract: The relative merits of spoons versus ice cream scoops for brain surgery were tested by a communication professor with no qualifications in neurosurgery in response to a spam/scam email soliciting articles. Ice cream was substituted for brains, and surgery (or "surgery") was performed by the communication professor's children/lab assistants, ages 5 and 9. It was found that ice cream scoops were most effective for serving large portions of "brains" (or ice cream) into bowls, while spoons were most effective for transferring "brains" (or ice cream) from the bowl to the lab assistants. Results were inconclusive with respect to the relative merits of chocolate syrup, marshmallows, and sprinkles in the surgical process, and will require further research.


Your turn. Go!

[mamselle]

We need a literature review first.

Who's got the chops to do that?

;-}

M.

[OneMoreYear]

I'm in! I love lit reviewing (seriously) and am completely unqualified to be involved in anything medical.
Fun fact, spoons are totally an appropriate device for brain surgery! https://archive.org/details/surgeryitsprinci1909keen/page/976/mode/2up/search/meningeal\   
Jury is still out on ice cream scoops, so maybe this study will answer that question.

[Puget]

This is the perfect break in between grading term papers! Just like in my grading rubric, the first paragraph should introduce the importance of the topic and provide a roadmap for the rest of the paper:

The problem of selecting appropriate tools for brain surgery is a critical one. Not only are currently available surgical tools expensive, but they are hard to obtain by home surgeons, especially those lacking traditional medical credentials. Simulation studies using manufactured brain-analog materials provide a valuable tool for beta-testing alternative surgical tools which could  increase accessibility and feasibility of at-home surgical procedures by alternative neuro-practitioners. In the current study, we provide an initial feasibility case study on the use of ice cream scoops versus spoons for brain surgery, using a frozen dairy product substrate as a stimulant of brain tissue.

[Parasaurolophus]

Since the dawn of time, spoons have been used to scoop things. It was only comparatively recently, however, that dicula lignea was turned from its historical task of scooping soup to the medical task of scooping the cerebrum from the cranial cavity. The spoon's shallow bowl was long thought ideally-suited to the task, but recent research by Cuclear, Spēnuz, Kijiko, et al. (2012) demonstrates that the instrument's idiophonic properties can interfere with electrical signals in the brain at the point of surgery.

[traductio]

(You people bring tears of joy to my eyes.)

[apl68]

Is there any way to involve ESP (Say, something about one or the other tool being less likely to shut down the Third Eye)?  Or Resentment Studies?  At the very least you could use a boilerplate acknowledgment that yes, you recognize that you are writing from the privileged position of being neurotypical, and thus must in some way justify your right to write about surgery for the non-neurotypical, who have been historically dis-privileged in our neurotypical-supremacist society.

Or better yet, establish your credentials as being non-neurotypical yourself.  The fact that you're a member of The Fora should go some way toward that....

[traductio]

I'm rather surprised, personally, that no one's taken up the ice cream angle yet.

[Puget]

I'm rather surprised, personally, that no one's taken up the ice cream angle yet.

Mine featured the ice cream, but I perhaps disguised it too well with my conversion to scientific jargon:

using a frozen dairy product substrate as a stimulant of brain tissue

BTW, "frozen dairy product" is what my parents used to call ice cream when I was little and didn't want to alert me to that possibility until they had discussed it. I caught on pretty quick though.

[traductio]

I'm rather surprised, personally, that no one's taken up the ice cream angle yet.

Mine featured the ice cream, but I perhaps disguised it too well with my conversion to scientific jargon:

using a frozen dairy product substrate as a stimulant of brain tissue

BTW, "frozen dairy product" is what my parents used to call ice cream when I was little and didn't want to alert me to that possibility until they had discussed it. I caught on pretty quick though.

Mmmmm, frozen dairy product substrate....

[arcturus]

Experimental Design

Our study of spoons versus scoops was predicated on previous studies which used a frozen dairy product as a representative cerebellum-type model (REFERENCE). However, after reading the related literature (more REFERENCES), we realized that further study was required to determine which flavor of frozen dairy product was most representative of the structural norms that our experiment was designed to investigate. Thus, the first step of our experimental design included tasting of at least five different flavors of frozen dairy product. To further validate our chosen substrate, we required tasting of all five flavors from at least four independent brands of frozen dairy product for a total of 20 separate half gallon containers. The randomized tastings were accomplished by the previously mentioned surgical assistants. We note that there may be some ad hoc hominem in this process as this preliminary determination of appropriate substrate required use of both scoops and spoons. Nonetheless, after careful consideration, we posit that Ben and Jerrys Chunky Monkey is tasty but not the best choice for this experiment due to the large chocolate bits that did not conform to our model. However, several different brands of vanilla with caramel swirl adequately replicated the density and color variations in the real-world material and thus were selected as the appropriate substrate for our subsequent investigation.

Note that this preliminary data collection also revealed a very important parameter that may impact the validity of the results presented here and any future studies that may attempt to replicate our results.  Specifically, due to its propensity to melt, we discovered that one of the potentially significant parameters in this experiment is the time difference (delta_T) between when the material was removed from the freezer and the time the experiment began. Indeed, when delta_T is long, we had difficulty replicating for ourselves the majority of results derived from studies conducted with short delta_Ts. Further, we note that while experiments with long delta_Ts may be of interest to the pure academic, we found that they were of less relevance to the matter at hand since the model material no longer appeared to be an appropriate subsitute for the real-world material. Fortunately, fast action on the part of our surgical assistants meant that the majority of our studies were completed with relatively short delta_Ts and thus should be considered the gold standard for further investigation of this important matter.

[Dear Graduate student, can you please complete the text for the remainder of our description of experiment? I know that we followed all of the correct protocols, including completing the human subjects paperwork, but I can no longer find the relevant notes.  Also, I put place-holders in for the lit review in the paragraph above. Please find the journal papers and cite appropriately. Thanks. Your absent-minded professor.]

[arcturus]

We also need to flesh-out (no pun intended) the future work/new directions segment at the end of the paper. I have a few ideas, but brainstorming (again, no pun intended) within the collaboration may be constructive.  Here are a few possible projects that could provide additional information on this critical issue:

- Are new tools required? We recommend a new investigation of "neurosurgery" on ice cream sandwiches and other novelty products. Of particular interest is an investigation into the most efficient approach to removing the neural matter substitute: do you go through the cookie material (face-on) or through the sides? Monte carlo simulations may be required to explore fully the geometric constraints imposed by ice cream cones, hard chocolate exteriors, and other irregularities.

- Possible side effects? Upon close inspection, there was a weak signal in the data suggesting that the experiment may have led to increased mass in the surgical assistants and surgeon. While transference is always a concern in psychological studies, the potential transfer of mass from subject matter to investigator indicates a potential hazard not disclosed in the IRB review of this preliminary study using brain-tissue subsitute. Further study, with a larger quantity of brain-tissue substitute, appears waranted at this time. Precise values regarding the quantity of brain-tissue substitute that will be sufficient to increase the significance of this weak signal is still uncertain, but are estimated to be in the range of one or two "full freezer" units.

[Parasaurolophus]

This is breathtakingly beautiful.

[arcturus]

Mamselle raised the important issue of author-order on the other thread (sorry, I don't know how to quote across threads yet). In my field, the principle author is listed first, so I suggest that traductio should retain that position since he/she wrote and submitted the abstract. In regards to the remainder of the author order, as an "a" I am perfectly fine with an alphabetical listing. Specifically, fighting over who contributed more and therefore "deserves" to be higher up in the listing just leads to bad feelings within a collaboration.  Also, please remember that co-authors are not only those that contribute to the written document, but may also include e.g., those that contributed to the idea, provided grant funding for those completing the project, built the instruments used in the measurement, or were otherwise just hanging around in the vicinity of this innovative research program.

Do we have an agreed upon time period for internal review of the draft by members of the collaboration before submission? I understand that this journal requires a quick turn-around-time, but at this time of year it may be difficult to have all members review the draft in a timely manner. I recommend that we put in place a policy of at least a few days (if not weeks or months) for members to read and comment on the nearly final draft before it is submitted. A time period is important so that if members of the collaboration (otherwise known as the fora) do not respond affirmatively, we can respect their desire not to be included in the author list even though we know that they will regret that decision for the remainder of their careers, after we win the Ig Nobel.

[Wahoo Redux]

Footnote: While it is not a focus of this paper, investigators would be remiss in not mentioning the recent Russian controversy involving sherbet and what it implies about the necessity of standardization.  While American (Smith, Jones, Adams et al.) and European (Douglas, Boucher, Braun & Esposito) investigators maintain WFSW protocols which require dairy-based products, certain discoveries by Japanese investigators (Yamamoto & Tanaka) utilizing mochi have obviated the need for either scoops or spoons, suggesting instead that chopsticks are a more efficient method for the delivery of cranial matter to any given structure, concave or plane.  These results have yet to be duplicated by western researchers, even when chopsticks were tested on 14, 16, and 32 ounce containers, including both smooth and chunky dairy-based brain matter; manual dexterity may play a part in these failures, and further research into chopsticks vs. either scoops or spoons may provide opportunities for breakthrough discoveries in multiple disciplines.  However, Russian researchers (working under conditions that cannot be verified) claim to have developed a type of "sherbet spherical" that can be utilized with scoops, spoons, and chopsticks.  Furthermore, Russian media claims that Russian subjects experienced no episodes of "brain freeze" or "ice-cream headache" while interacting with sherbet sphericals.  Whether or not this has to do with portion control cannot be ascertained at this time.  ISC CEO Heide Hackmann made certain public statements which challenged Russian findings (see Schnudwiller et al. 2019) and suggested these investigations were simply an attempt to embarrass western science.  The purpose of this paper is not to evaluate these findings or Hackman's statements, but it is important to note that the purview of knowledge regarding dairy-based brain matter is constantly expanding and not free of controversial material.  Care must be taken regarding all aspects of brain matter, dairy and non-dairy, spherical or scyphoid.