I must apologize for inadvertently airing a bit of SpecGram-internal dirty laundry in the last issue, specifically in the article, “The sg-index: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff”, prepared by the (now former) SpecGram Data Science Interns. As it was time for decennial performance reviews, the HR department, in the personage of Herr Bestrafung, did in fact request a ranking of performance of various and sundry contributors over the last decade. And while it was a fine and dandy ranking algorithm, and its results were provided, the Data Science Interns made a number of mistakes.
First, they decided to editorialize about the various rankees, and they compounded that mistake by doing it in writing. Their comments were generally bitter
The publishing department did a fine job transcribing and formatting the report and comments, for which they are to be commended. However, they could have used a bit more critical thinking, and taken steps to verify the report was intended for publication. There have been token floggings.
The (now former) SpecGram Data Science Interns have all been flogged to the limit allowed by their internship contracts (i.e., some are still being flogged hourly), and all have been demoted to Sacrificial Interns (should tea leaves fail to be sufficiently revelatory, as is the traditional manner).
To our valued contributors and editors, we apologize again. Your next pay packet will include a voucher for an all-
To academia at large, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight the absurdity of author-
We apologize for any inconvenience.