Thread by @RealPeerReview

It has come to our attention that some people are suggesting that "dog paper" was accepted because reviewers are busy people and
"is same as physics journal accepting a paper with fake data"

To dispel such notions, we shall publish reviewer comments to Dog rape paper.
[thread]

It starts off slow and fairly optimistic, with paper being rejected (they almost dodged the bullet here, didn't theEE

EEE wait a minute... oh... oh wow, "animals and black feminist geographies", now that's an unfortunate turn of phrase...

Now, what will reviewers want after some more "feminist geographies" was added to the text?

Well, for one all of them are now supportive of the work in the under-explored area of dog rape culture

Reviewer 1 is very concerned about ethics of inspecting dog genitals without dog's consent, and the inequality that represents relative to human "participants"

Reviewer 2 is concerned about methodology... perhaps they have some intact sanity and will come to realize that... oh...

oh... oh NO oh NO

Oh NO

NONONONONONONONONO

Reviewer 2 you were the CHOSEN ONE, you were supposed to DESTROY THE NONSENSE, NOT JOIN IT!

Reviewer 3 seems to raise important points regarding absence of due process in dog rape accusations

Reviewer 3 also seems to believe that dog rape is a whiteness issue, takes issue with the paper being too much like a "science paper", and wants even more Black Feminism(s).

We do, however, agree with R3 that Harlan Weaver is indeed very relevant to the issue of dog rape culture

After even more Black Feminism(s) were added, the paper was accepted, with Managing Editor even claiming to be "pleased" by this turn of events.

THE END (OR IS IT?)