482
Last night I received an extremely abrupt email from one of the most obnoxious people that it has been my misfortune to have ever had to deal with professionally (I've mentioned this person before). This person's arrogance knows no bounds as they blame everyone else for mistakes in their work. This saga has been running for over three years now, and they have successfully managed to infuriate the journal's editor and the entire editorial board, the translator, the copyeditor, the typesetter, the publisher and the printer. All because this person expects everyone else to clean up their mess - only to criticise and blame anyone who makes an effort. This article was shelved when the author refused to accept the translation (no attempt was made to go over the translation and help the poor translator) - a translation that the journal had paid for. Early last year, however, she presented us with a poor translation of the article which she was pleased to accept. Upon reading it, I immediately realised that the translator was not a native English speaker and was unwilling to stand up to this bully. My job was to ensure the English was of an acceptable standard and that the article complied with the journal's style guide. I did my best. The grammar was tidied up and all literal translations corrected. The bully refused to accept it. A meeting was held at which this obnoxious person was informed that I spoke and wrote better English than they did, and that the best way to make sure the article is acceptable is to do what all other authors do, and collaborate in the amendment process rather than leave it to others. The final proofs came, and, apart from a couple of typos, they were the same as the author approved text. I sent them to the author, and received an abrupt email blaming me for 'making unauthorised changes' and 'violating the author's rights'. Under no circumstances, I was told, were we to publish without introducing over 100 unnecessary changes. I sent a message back politely telling this person to take a long run off a short pier and to brush up on their people skills. I also pointed out that one of the references (to one of their own articles) that they insisted on changing was, in fact, correct in the original. I got a message this morning insisting that, despite what it says on the book - which I have in front of me, it was published in 1999, and that the January 2000 printed on it is obviously a typographical error. I look forward to the reaction when they find out that it was too late to incorporate the changes, since the journal has already been printed!

I finished decorating the living-room on this day last year