Heh, I read the email from the angry author more closely, and she used the sentence "My readers expect no less than this figure from an article authored by me."
So, 1. She presumably typed that with a straight face. Somebody thinks SUPER highly of herself. And 2. She thinks "her readers" expect a fucking PIE CHART? I mean, pie charts are, basically, remedial medical figures. The complexity of the articles that the AMA publishes is not pie-chart level. Pie charts are a way of saying "Here are 5 categories and the percentages for each category. I could have just put this in a sentence in the article but I think a pie chart is fancier and I need tenure."
This author is pretentious as hell. Oh my god. I feel like I can summon some energy to email her, because she needs to know that she needs to back the truck up and take her fucking pie chart with her.
You're pretty passionate about pie charts.
But apparently not as passionate as this author.
It is my fond hope that you be permitted to send the author this in response: [link]
She presumably typed that with a straight face.
I assume they wait for each issue of the journal with bated breath, praying it will bring another installment of their favorite author's work.
When come back, bring pie chart.
I might fight the senior editors to get that one left in.
Bahahahaha, the author emailed me and said "I have written to the editor-in-chief to request a waiver of a misguided rule. I know that you were only following orders, but omitting this figure hinders research."
Again, this is a PIE CHART. I mean, complex figures do exist (and we hatessss them, yes we do), and I could understand her outrage if we axed a really complex figure. But this figure is the equivalent of "Dogs: 43%; Cats: 43%; Lizards: 10%; Mothras: 3%; That Thing From The Neverending Story: 1%." WHAT THE SHIT LADY.
This is not a good day to fuck with me.
