The Academic Circus

And then, let's talk about the journal that invited someone as a guest editor. They must be so serious about their process, right? Hah! Turns out they just sent out random invitations to a bunch of people and picked one at random.

But wait, it gets better. Let me share some actual emails that landed in my inbox recently. You can't make this stuff up.

The Beautiful Chaos of False Authority

Exhibit A: The Speed Complaint

First, we have Mrs. Maria Jaranowska, Assistant Editor, who's apparently very concerned about the quality of peer review. Her complaint? My review was too good, too fast, and therefore must be AI-generated. Here's her actual email:

Classic move—avoid conflict, throw some blame around, and, of course, pretend it was all part of the plan. Oh, and let's not forget how they violate reviewer restrictions while acting like they've got it all together.

Exhibit B: The Random Guest Editor Invitation

But wait, there's more! From the same publisher (MDPI), but a different journal, comes Ms. April Mu with this gem:

It's all so beautifully chaotic, I almost respect it.

The Academic Selection Process: A Masterclass in Dysfunction

Let's break down this sophisticated academic process step by step, with real examples:

The Delicious Irony

Here's what makes this absolutely chef's kiss perfect:

The assistant editor is literally complaining about AI while providing a masterclass in why AI might be necessary. Meanwhile, another editor from the same publisher is asking guest editors to self-organize because they can't be bothered with actual editorial oversight. And now Dr. Sorina is editing reviews without permission then asking for retroactive approval!

The Guest Editor's Dilemma

Picture this: You're invited to be a guest editor. You think it's because of your expertise, your reputation, your carefully built academic credibility. You prepare thoughtfully, review the guidelines, take the responsibility seriously.

Then you discover you were just... picked at random.

The beautiful irony? The guest editor starts questioning themselves instead of the system. Classic institutional gaslighting at its finest.

Plot Twist: Enter Dr. Sorina Mihaela Bogdan

Just when you think this circus can't get more entertaining, Dr. Sorina Mihaela Bogdan enters the ring! This morning's email brings us a fresh dose of MDPI magic:

But here's the delicious irony: Dr. Bogdan has a PhD but isn't affiliated with any university or research institution. She's essentially a freelance editor telling actual researchers how to do their work. The confidence is breathtaking!

The response? Complete radio silence. No clicking the link, no engaging with the circus. Sometimes the most professional response to institutional chaos is dignified indifference.

Plot Twist Continues: The MDPI IoT Journal Review Disaster

But wait, there's more from the MDPI circus! Fresh evidence of how not to run a review process comes straight from their IoT journal. Buckle up for a masterclass in review process dysfunction that spans multiple revision rounds.

This isn't just regular dysfunction — this is systematic review process failure documented in real-time. The reviewer provided detailed, constructive feedback across multiple rounds, only to be met with persistent communication issues and process violations.

Here's what makes this particularly delicious: The reviewer documented everything. Initial assessment, detailed review points, editorial recommendations, author responses, second round comments — a complete record of how MDPI IoT manages to turn a scholarly review process into an endurance test of professional patience.

The beautiful irony? The reviewer was so thorough they created a complete documentation of the process failure. It reads like an anthropological study of institutional dysfunction — complete with timestamps, detailed feedback, and a final professional withdrawal when standards couldn't be maintained.

And the final statement? "I will reconsider to review after the professional communication style has been made." Translation: "Fix your process, then we'll talk."

This is what happens when institutional chaos meets professional standards. The professional response isn't angry confrontation — it's documented withdrawal with clear conditions for re-engagement. Chef's kiss perfect.

Deep Dive: The MDPI IoT Journal Masterclass in Review Process Destruction

The MDPI IoT journal deserves special recognition for creating what might be the most thoroughly documented review process failure in academic publishing history. This isn't just dysfunction — it's artisanal dysfunction, carefully crafted over multiple revision rounds.

The IoT Journal's Greatest Hits

What makes the IoT journal particularly special is their ability to take a comprehensive, detailed review process and transform it into a test of human patience. They've managed to weaponize the revision process itself!

The IoT Review Process: A Case Study in Institutional Gaslighting

Let's break down the IoT journal's innovative approach to reviewer management:

The beauty of this system? The IoT journal managed to convert expert knowledge into a comprehensive documentation of their own dysfunction. Every round of review became additional evidence of their inability to maintain professional standards.

The IoT Innovation: Reviewer Documentation As Service

Here's what's particularly brilliant about the IoT journal's approach: they've essentially outsourced the documentation of their own incompetence to their reviewers. Instead of maintaining professional standards themselves, they've created a system where qualified reviewers do the work of documenting exactly why the process is broken.

Think about the efficiency: instead of hiring competent editorial staff, they've created a system where professional reviewers voluntarily create detailed reports on exactly what's wrong with their process. It's like getting free consulting on your institutional failures!

The IoT Communication Style: A Linguistic Study

The IoT journal has developed what we might call a unique communication style that seems specifically designed to test the limits of professional patience. It's like they've created a new dialect of academic discourse — one that speaks fluent dysfunction.

The most impressive part? They've managed to maintain this communication style consistently across multiple revision rounds. That takes real commitment to dysfunction!

The IoT Legacy: A Template for What Not to Do

Perhaps the IoT journal's greatest contribution to academic publishing is providing a comprehensive template for how not to run a review process. Every violation, every communication failure, every boundary crossed has been carefully documented by their reviewers.

The beautiful irony? The IoT journal's failure has become more educationally valuable than many of their successful publications. Their dysfunction documentation will probably have more long-term impact on academic publishing standards than their actual research content.

The IoT Economics: Vouchers vs. Professional Dignity

But here's the cherry on top of this dysfunction sundae: MDPI typically offers reviewers a voucher ranging from 50 to 100 euros once the review process is finalized and the manuscript is prepared for publication. Because nothing says "we value your expertise" like a discount coupon after putting you through institutional hell!

The beautiful irony? Most qualified reviewers find this voucher system irrelevant. When you're dealing with systematic professional boundary violations, communication failures, and institutional gaslighting, a discount coupon feels less like compensation and more like... insult to injury.

Think about the economics here: They're essentially saying that professional dignity has a market value of 50-100 euros. It's like they've created a price list for tolerating institutional incompetence!

The most delicious part? The voucher is only provided once the manuscript is prepared for publication — meaning you have to endure their entire dysfunctional process, watch them publish potentially substandard work, and THEN get your discount coupon. It's like a loyalty program for institutional masochism!

The Systemic Dysfunction Pattern: A Scientific Analysis

What we're witnessing isn't random incompetence — it's systematic institutional failure with reproducible patterns. Like a well-designed experiment, MDPI has created a controlled environment where professional standards go to die.

The beautiful consistency is breathtaking. Whether it's Maria complaining about quality, April delegating responsibility, Sorina editing without permission, or the IoT team turning reviews into endurance tests — they all follow the same playbook.

The Academic Reputation Destruction Machine

Here's what's particularly fascinating: MDPI has industrialized the process of alienating qualified reviewers. It's not accidental incompetence — it's a well-oiled machine designed to turn professional expertise into documented dysfunction.

The efficiency is remarkable. They've managed to create a system that converts professional expertise into institutional embarrassment with 100% reproducibility.

The Documentation Trail: Evidence Collection

What makes this particularly delicious is how thoroughly documented everything is. Every email, every violation, every professional boundary crossed — it's all preserved for posterity.

The irony? They're creating the evidence that demonstrates exactly why serious academics should avoid their journals. Every email, every violation, every gaslighting attempt becomes part of the permanent record.

The Reviewer Psychology Experiment

From a behavioral science perspective, this is fascinating. MDPI has essentially created a natural experiment in how professional standards interact with institutional chaos.

The most interesting finding? Professional reviewers don't just quit — they create comprehensive documentation of why they're quitting. It's like MDPI has accidentally funded a research project into their own institutional failures.

The Ecosystem Impact: Academic Natural Selection

Here's the beautiful irony: MDPI is actually performing a valuable service for the academic community. They're creating a natural selection pressure that helps identify journals worth avoiding!

Think about it: every documented case of dysfunction makes it easier for future reviewers to recognize red flags. Maria's AI paranoia, April's delegation strategy, Sorina's edit-first-ask-later approach — they're all becoming teachable moments in professional standards.

The Institutional Learning Opportunity

What's particularly fascinating is how MDPI's dysfunction creates educational content for the rest of the academic world. Every violation, every gaslighting attempt, every professional boundary crossed becomes a case study in what not to do.

It's like MDPI is running a masterclass in editorial malpractice — complete with documented examples, email evidence, and reproducible results. The academic community should probably send them a thank-you note!

The Professional Standards Laboratory

From a systems perspective, MDPI has created something remarkable: a controlled environment where we can observe what happens when professional standards are systematically violated. It's like a behavioral laboratory for academic publishing ethics.

The experimental design is actually quite elegant: Take professional reviewers, apply systematic dysfunction, measure the response. The fact that every qualified reviewer reaches the same conclusion suggests this isn't about individual preferences — it's about fundamental professional standards.

The Final Irony: Being Faulted by the Flawed

And here we find ourselves again — being faulted by their flawed system. What a life indeed! The beautiful, cosmic joke of it all: a broken institution criticizing the very people who could fix it.

It's like being criticized for your driving by someone who's actively crashing their car. The audacity is breathtaking, but the comedy is priceless.

At this point, it's almost performance art. MDPI has created a self-sustaining cycle of institutional dysfunction that generates its own entertainment value. Every email, every violation, every gaslighting attempt just adds to the comedy gold.

The most beautiful part? We get to laugh at the absurdity while maintaining our professional dignity. They get to continue their circus while we document it for posterity. Everybody wins! (Well, except for their reputation, but that ship sailed long ago.)

The Assistant Editor vs. AI Showdown

Let's be honest here: Mrs. Maria is essentially admitting that AI produces better reviews than her usual reviewers. Think about it:

The beautiful irony? She's basically advertising for AI while trying to complain about it. "This review is too good, therefore it must be fake!" is not the flex she thinks it is.

The Ultimate Irony: Quality Control

But here's the real kicker that Mrs. Maria completely missed:

Think about this logic:

So let me get this straight: AI-generated content requires human oversight and approval before publication, but Maria's natural stupidity gets published without any quality control whatsoever?

That's right — AI has better quality control than MDPI's editorial process. At least AI waits for approval before publishing nonsense.

The Plot Thickens: The ORCID Revelation

But wait, it gets even more ridiculous. Here's the timeline of events that Mrs. Maria apparently didn't think through:

Wait, let that sink in. The MDPI system itself allowed the reviewer to deposit credits to their ORCID account — this isn't manual, it's automated validation that the review met their standards. Maria is literally complaining about work that her own journal's system had already approved and credited.

So let's recap this beautiful chaos:

This raises some delicious questions:

The most charitable interpretation? Maria doesn't actually read the reviews before processing them. The less charitable interpretation? She processed work she knew was high quality, then complained about it being "too good" because that's suspicious.

The Institutional Comedy

What makes this particularly delicious is the audacity. They violate their own reviewer restrictions while simultaneously acting like paragons of academic integrity. They throw together a random selection process and then present it with the gravitas of a Supreme Court nomination.

It's performance art, really. Institutional dysfunction as theater.

Respect for the Chaos

And honestly? There's something almost admirable about the sheer commitment to dysfunction. It takes real dedication to maintain this level of institutional chaos while keeping a straight face.

They've created a system so beautifully broken that it functions purely on momentum and collective delusion. It's like watching a Rube Goldberg machine made entirely of academic bureaucracy and professional incompetence.