Here it is:
On May 18, 2016, at 8:38 AM, ** <**@**.org> wrote:
Dr. Gelman,
I hope all is well. I looked at your paper on [COMPANY] and would be very interested in talking about having a short followup or a review article about this published in the next issue of the Medical Research Archives. It would be interesting to see a paper with new data since this was published, or any additional followup work you have done. If you could also tell me more about your current projects that would be helpful. The Medical Research Archives is an online and print peer-reviewed journal. The deadlines are flexible. I am happy to asnwer any questions. Please respond at your earliest convenience.
Best Regards,
**
Medical Research Archives
** ** Avenue
** CA ***** USAwww.***
Ummm, I guess it makes sense, if these people actually knew what they were doing, they’d either (a) have some legitimate job, or (b) be running a more lucrative grift.
But if they really really have their heart set on scamming academic researchers, I recommend they join up with Wolfram Research. Go with the market leaders, that’s what I say.
Re Wolfram: It’d be fun to have a contest to turn a book review into a computer demonstration……
I gave some hints for that in the Wolfram Research link above (re: Gardin).
They were kind enough to write you Andrew; you should at least send them some Alan Sokal-ish gibberish for their time and effort ;-)
Andrew:
You could use this to generate a nice response: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/scicache/818/scimakelatex.3376.Gelman+A.ORourke+K.pdf
http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/scicache/673/scimakelatex.896.Gelman+A.ORourke+K.Carpenter+B.Betancourt+M.Vehtark+A.pdf
it was all going so well until “we deployed 59 Apple Newtons across the Internet- 2 network, and tested our journaling file systems accordingly”
Why hide identities of the spammers? By being spammers they forfeited the right of usual Internet courtesy of not outing people without express consent.
D.O.:
Indeed. But (a) I don’t want to give them the free publicity, and (b) I’d rather focus on the spam, not the identities of the spammers. The spam itself is kind of interesting; the spammers are boring, boring people.
Interesting that you treat spammers differently. I mean you do “out” the identities of plagarizers, p-hackers, data-fraudsters etc. on a regular basis.
Rahul:
It’s a bit different with authors of published papers. If you post a paper on Arxiv or publish it in a journal, you’re making your identity known, so there’s no “outing” involved, indeed anyone could find your name by googling the name of the paper.