Reviewer2

I admit, I read most of the manuscript ad wrote this review after taking an Ambien: I fear it might have made me a frequentist.

In scholarly research, there are "big questions" and "small questions." I found it refreshingly liberating to find neither in this manuscript.

I applaud the author(s) for bravely pursuing the WTF identification strategy.

On a positive note, I truly felt mortality in a new way as I read Section 3. This makes sense, because my soul then died when I read Section 4. R&R, where the first R stands for Resurrect.

In my opinion, this manuscript should be career-changing for the author(s).

MOAR LIT REVIEW

I believe a null result only when it refutes a previously published non-null result.

This manuscript made me probe my understanding of the notion of a "fireable offense." I've grown as a result.

As a child, I always wondered what donkeys would write if they had opposable thumbs. NOW I KNOW.

I never understood why people objected to "reject and resubmits." Now...oh, now I do.

This manuscript gave me deja vu. Didn't know why. Now I do: I saw it when I went to "the island of horrible ideas" with my in-laws.

I kept thinking to myself, "what would I think of this manuscript if it had a free buffet?" In the end, I am only hungry & poorer. Reject.

I was confused why I was asked to review this until I saw Ashton Kutcher is the new editor-in-chief of this journal. R&R, for the giggles.

THANK GOD I PRINTED THIS DOUBLE-SIDED. Reject.

Did the author get IRB approval before submitting this to be read by reviewers? I didn't give any sort of consent to this torture.

This manuscript reminds me of Green Day's third album, "Dookie."

When reading Section 2, I correctly got the creeping feeling that the argument of this manuscript had been cancelled.

I felt like this manuscript's argument was lifted from "The Usual Suspects."

...and that's why I try not to review after eating.

The organization of this manuscript reminds me of a Family Circus cartoon from 1989.