The Federal Bureau of Investigation today announced that Reviewer 2 has been arrested and is in custody.
According to Special Agent Penny Smith, the arrest was bittersweet.
“We were initially looking for Anonymous, you know, the computer hacker collective. We thought we tracked them down to a leafy suburb just east of St Paul, Minnesota. But when we stormed the house, we only found Reviewer 2 inside. Looks like we did find “anonymous,” but not the one we were hoping to find.”
We can now reveal exclusively that Reviewer 2 is, in fact, Johnny Cox, a 58 year old unemployed man whose only claim to fame is that he once came in second place on the hit television show, Jeopardy!, in 1987.
Mr Cox was charged with harassment and electronic mail fraud covering all 50 states.
It was previously thought that Reviewer 2 was a role shared by a myriad of individuals, but it turns out it was the same guy this whole time.
Mr Cox’s neighbor, who similarly wishes to remain anonymous, wasn’t surprised at the arrest. “Yeah, that guy’s a total d^ck. He was always complaining about my garden and telling me I should have used different methods. I was like, whatever, man.”
Although everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the evidence against Mr Cox is damning.
Within hours of his arrest, hundreds of thousands of academics submitted corroborating documents replete with repeated insults and misleading advice that was presented as though it were fact.
“Good riddance,” said Professor Budrick from Georgetown University. “I hope they give him the [electric] chair. I’m glad he finally got his comeuppance.”
Although Mr Cox has only been in custody for a week, the effect on research output has been profound.
The acceptance rates at Nature and Science now stand at 82% and 79%, respectively, up from 7% and 8% the previous week.
Researchers across the world are hoping and praying that Mr Cox’s request for bail will be denied.
Although Mr Cox refuses to speak to the media, citing his fifth amendment rights, his attorney, Reginald Poindexter, issued a statement on behalf of his client.
“Mr Cox categorically rejects these vexatious charges that have been laid against him. The charges are not sufficiently grounded in extant theory and the prosecutors have failed to make a persuasive argument. The methods by which the case against him was constructed are fundamentally flawed. Mr Cox recommends rejection of these charges with no possibility of revision.”
The case continues.
Professor Andrew R. Timming
This article is published under a Creative Commons 4.0 License.
To submit an article to Dire Ed, visit http://dire.ed.com/submissions/