Here's an accusation about my editing from an author that I haven't heard before: it's a tiny (2-page) commentary on a big research article, and the author is part of the Department of Defense (the big research article used active military members for their study, so the DoD is involved).
The author of the article said that I made "an unprecedented amount" of changes to her commentary, and it would require a week of new review by the DoD because -- I swear she said this -- "the changes could be damaging to the Department of Defense."
GUYS. YOU GUYS. I think I know how to take down the Trump administration. I'll sneak in through the DoD with my wily editing skillz! (Seriously. My editing to her tiny commentary could be *damaging* to the DoD??? If that's true, our country's military is is grave danger.)
This author made sure to copy the editor-in-chief on her email so I could see that she was pissed and was making sure the higher-ups knew it. (I mean, I respect that level of pettiness, but still.)
About 20 minutes later, the editor-in-chief replied to the author (and copied me) and said "Respectfully, these changes are neither extensive nor surprising for our journal's high standards, and I do not believe they will be damaging to the DoD. Your commentary is already overdue, so please answer the editor's queries and return it today so that it will not be pulled from publication."
I want to print this email out and fucking frame it. Getting vindication from the editor in chief is like a drug!