  I present for your appraisal three independent cases of the manuscript
referee process conducted by a venerable peer-reviewed scientific journal. Each
case involves a little pig, who submitted for consideration a theoretical plan
for a house to be constructed presently, in a faraway land. An anonymous big
bad wolf was assigned by the journal to assess the merit of these manuscripts.
The pigs proposed three distinct construction frameworks, which varied in
physical and mathematical sophistication. The first little pig submitted a
model of straw, based on the numerical method of toe-counting. His design
included odd features, such as spilled millet and cloven-hoofprints on the
window sill -- possibly a ploy to distract the wolf from the manuscript's
facile mathematical foundation. The second little pig used a more advanced
approach, employing Newton's classical laws of motion, to propose a house of
sticks. This pig included in her manuscript copious citations by a specific
wolf, possibly aiming to ensure acceptance by flattering the wolf whom she
anticipated would be the referee. The third little pig described an
ostentatious house of bricks based on an elaborate dynamical systems and
stability analysis, possibly scheming to dazzle and impress. The big bad wolf
did not appear moved by any of the pigs' tactics. His recommendations were, for
straw: the minor revision of water-proofing; for sticks: the major revision of
fire-proofing, given concerns surrounding climate change; for bricks:
unequivocal rejection, accompanied by multiple derogatory comments regarding
"high-and-mighty theorists." I describe each case in detail, and suggest that
the wolf's reports might be driven as much by self interest as the manuscripts
themselves -- namely, that at the time the wolf wrote the reviews, he was
rather hungry. Finally, I examine morals learned, if any.
