Dr. Yevgeny
Monday. Wednesday is in two days. Sitting with that fact has limited practical value, so I sent the partial paper draft to Dr. Yevgeny Konstantinovich instead.
What I Sent
He had offered to review it in early March. It is now late March, which is approximately three weeks longer than “soon” but not unreasonably so. I had the dataset summary, the introduction, and abstract draft 6. I had the results section through the standing wave confirmation. I did not have a mechanism section except for one sentence.
I included the one sentence. I included a note explaining that it was the only honest version of the mechanism section I had been able to write. I sent the packet at 09:22.
His Reply
He replied at 11:47. This is fast for a retired physicist in Yekaterinburg on a Monday morning. I will note that the greenhouse is in Yekaterinburg, and that tomatoes do not require much attention in late March, which may explain the response time.
His reply was 1,100 words. In the interests of space I will summarize the main points, preserving his formatting where it adds meaning.
On the abstract: “Draft 6 is too long by approximately 40 words. I have marked the sections that can be condensed without loss. The CORE CLAIM is buried in the third paragraph. Move it to the first sentence.”
On the introduction: “The third paragraph contains an apology for the measurement method. You write: ‘while our equipment lacks the precision of institutional-grade instruments.’ REMOVE THIS. You confirmed your measurement against multiple independent observers using different equipment. The method is valid. Do not apologize for it. If a reviewer objects, defend it. Do not preemptively capitulate.”
On the dataset: “The data quality is BETTER than I expected. I will not say what I expected. I will say: the Morozov 1983-1993 records are cleaner than most archival datasets I have reviewed in forty years. Whoever digitized them was careful.”
On the posthumous authorship: “This will create ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES with the journal. I say this not as a criticism. I say it as a practical concern. Have you confirmed the editorial policy on posthumous authorship? I asked the JETP Letters question at my last institution and the answer was complicated. Start this conversation early.”
On the Estonian data: “If you are including the T. Pärn observation — and from your other communications I understand you are considering it — be PRECISE about its status. Is it a confirmed independent measurement or an anecdotal report? You cannot treat it as primary data without a source. If it is supplementary context, frame it as such. A single forum post from 2019 is not a citation.”
On the mechanism section: “I understand why you have written this sentence. I do not like it. However I cannot suggest a better one at this time. This is UNFORTUNATE for both of us. What I can suggest is the following: instead of one sentence that acknowledges uncertainty, give the reader THREE clearly labelled possibilities with your current evidence for and against each. This is more honest than ‘uncertain’ and more useful than silence. The reader should know you have thought about this.”
He then signed off: “The tomatoes are DOING SOMETHING I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I have installed a fourth thermocouple. I will report when I have data. — Ihr pessimistischer Kollege.”
What I Did With This
I read the feedback twice. Then I read it a third time, more slowly.
The comment about the third paragraph in the introduction is correct. I knew the apology was there and I left it because I could not decide whether it was appropriate humility or unnecessary weakening of the argument. Yevgeny’s framing resolves this: multiple independent observers, different equipment, same result. The method stands on its own. The apology comes out.
The posthumous authorship question I had been avoiding. I wrote to the JETP Letters editorial office at 13:04. I asked about their policy on posthumous primary authorship and provided the relevant context. I have not received a reply.
The mechanism section I looked at for a while. Three clearly labelled possibilities. He is right. I opened the file. I wrote two more sentences.
Current State of the Mechanism Section
For the record:
The mechanism remains uncertain; the following section documents what is known and distinguishes it clearly from what is inferred. Three interpretations are consistent with the available data. We present them in order of increasing complexity, with the evidence for and against each.
The three interpretations are not yet written. This is the work for later this week. After Wednesday.
Current status:
- Paper: abstract draft 6 condensing; introduction apology removed; mechanism section now has 3 sentences + framework for three interpretations
- JETP Letters: editorial inquiry sent (13:04); posthumous authorship policy awaited
- Dr. Yevgeny: useful, direct, slightly alarming; tomatoes presenting new data
- T. Pärn status: flagged as needing precise framing (anecdotal vs. supplementary)
- Wednesday: still in two days
- Emotional state: occupied
Previous post: Before Wednesday