The Laboratory was recently asked to review a paper titled “On the Sound of a Fallen Fork” from the Department of Crashes at a neighbouring institute. We reproduce our report below, with their names removed and our feelings preserved.
Summary Of The Submission
The authors claim that a fork, dropped onto a tile floor, produces a sound that varies according to the mood of the person who dropped it. The authors present four graphs, two photographs and a sentence that appears twice.
General Comments
The topic is of interest. The execution is not. The paper confuses a fork with a spoon on page three, then corrects itself on page five, then confuses them again on page six. A reader may begin to suspect that the authors have only seen cutlery on television.
Specific Concerns
- The sample size is one fork. We recommend at least two, and ideally a whole drawer.
- No cat was present at any of the trials. The authors do not explain how the fork fell without help.
- The word “clang” is used 31 times. The word “clink” is used 4 times. Neither is defined.
- Figure 2 is a drawing of a fork, and appears to have been done by a child. We hope it was a talented one.
Statistical Analysis
The authors state that their results are significant at the 5 percent level. Our statistician, a cat who prefers not to be named, looked at the figures for several minutes and then yawned. The Laboratory interprets this as a rejection.
Recommendation
We recommend that the paper be rejected, then accepted, then rejected again, in order to give the authors a sense of the full experience. We also recommend that they add a cat.
Detailed Remarks On Methodology
The authors describe their method as rigorous, which is generous. A fork was dropped from the height of a human elbow onto a surface described only as hard. There is no record of the temperature of the room, the age of the fork, or whether it was in a good mood. In our experience a fork in a bad mood sounds noticeably sharper.
The authors also appear to have used the same fork for all trials. A fork subjected to repeated falls will develop a certain world weariness, and this will bias the results. We recommend a fresh fork for each trial, and a moment of silence for the retired ones.
Remarks On The Literature
The reference list contains 14 items, of which three are the authors’ own previous papers and two are recipes. We checked the citations. Reference 9 does not exist. Reference 11 exists but argues the opposite. Reference 12 is a photograph of a cat, and we are happy to say it is the strongest source in the paper.
Remarks On Ethics
The authors do not state whether the fork consented. We would like to see an ethics statement, a risk assessment and a small cushion.
Questions For The Authors
- What was the fork thinking?
- Why was the floor tile and not wood?
- Why does the second graph show the sound getting quieter with time, when the sound clearly continues in the reader’s head?
- Is the fork a member of the authors’ family?
Confidential Comments To The Editor
This is the best paper we have read this week. We recommend rejecting it solely so that we may submit something similar next month.
Reviewer Conduct
This review was prepared by three cats, one of whom did the reading, one of whom did the writing and one of whom lay across the printout throughout. We believe that is a standard division of labour.
We offer these comments in the spirit of collegiality. We will be at the conference, near the buffet, standing very still, and watching.
Leave a Reply