Thank you for the recent invitation to review the manuscript [XXXXXXX]. I have regretfully declined it on the grounds of my total ignorance of the field of cultural psychology, just as I have regretfully declined your eight previous invitations to review manuscripts in the field of cultural psychology.
Choosing a Reviewer
So many choices!Markram's Algorithmic Sauce.
This certainly has the advantage that papers such as Bradstreet et al. (2014) which might never have passed the strait gateway of more conventionally-controlled journals, have found their way into the public domain to enhance the gaiety of nations. It also allows the publishers to bypass Editors completely through the guest-editored "Special Issue" system (which to a jaundiced onlooker might closely resemble a form of multi-level marketing), resulting in the recent loss of editors en masse. However, from my perspective it has the disadvantage that I am repeatedly spammed with these spurious invitations. Perhaps Henry Markram could be called away from his day job of pissing away EU neuroscience research funds and alienating EU neuroscientists, and invest some time in adjusting his special distributed-reviewing algorithms so that they work in a halfway competent fashion?
I am given to understand that when I first agreed to look at a manuscript for the Frontiers stable, you created an entry in your reviewer database for me... which evidently lists my specialty as "cultural psychologist". I am now expected to grapple with a counter-intuitive morass of fugliness masquerading as an "interface" and edit this entry to reflect my actual areas of expertise -- without payment for my time -- rather than the editorial staff performing this task on the basis of my previous reviewing assignments and my published CV, as part of the job they are paid for.
I have a better idea, or at least one which involves less effort for me, which is that you stop asking me to review manuscripts.
Love, SmutUPDATE: Thanks, fish