Also useful as a single word caption for a particularly pretty picture for which you cannot otherwise find a true use.

For black hole, call it a relativity quagmire
For dark energy, call it universal compensator
For dark matter, perhaps exotic matter with pasties (ok, you can leave the pasties part out of it if you really insist)
As for brown dwarfs, well, d-list stars might be more apt as a name

Pieter — I think I’d reserve “pimped out” for sufficiently flashy and ornate models. SJGR should work for 3-loop calculations or data, in the right context.

I’m pretty sure that “we’d like to thank your sister *and* your mother” is forbidden by APS style rules, but allowed in JHEP.

With me, it doesn’t mean I’m thanking the recipient, it means I’m going to follow the email with a glass of wine. What’s that? No, I don’t mean you’re about to get a glass of wine in your inbox…

Cheers,

Howard

Phys Rev D actually has that policy. Take a look over there to see how ridiculous that looks. “I find that…..I have computed that….” It’s like reading Facebook.

As in ‘We propose a scenario in which 14TeV pp collisions lead to resonant pair production of fire-breathing unicorns. Our model has various spectacular signatures….’

Also, when speaking I tend to use cheers to mean “thanks” rather than “goodbye”. I have been cheerfully assuming that email correspondents are grateful to me for something.

The use of “shit just got real” in a physics paper should be saved for some nasty three-loop calculation, or the moral equivalent. Anybody using it as a math pun will face consequences too terrible to type.

I think it’s hard to edit PDF files.

A good abstract should note how much sooner the cure for cancer will be found as a result of the breakthroughs contained in the paper and estimate how many lives will be saved.

The innovative character of the paper should be emphasised by omitting misguided prior work.

It is a good idea to congratulate yourself and your coauthors in the concluding paragraphs.

Those who disagree with presented view should be clearly labeled as crackpots with the word preferably in bold, if criticism has to be included for reference use strikethrough font.

Statements of questionable validity should be preceded with ‘self-evident.’

Instead of giving undue weight to individuals it is often preferable to cite scientific consensus.

Never let data stand in the way of great science.

“3c. Use boldface for certain forms in Oscan and Umbrian, and to distinguish Gaulish and other forms originally written in the Greek alphabet.”

Also, the journal Natural Language Semantics states very sternly, and in boldface so that you don’t miss it, that “PDF is not an acceptable file format” for submissions. This line comes right after a line where TIFF, GIF, JPEG, Excel, and Powerpoint are listed as acceptable formats.

Man, there is something wrong about my profession.

Authors should refer to at least one dark matter model that fits any anomalous effect observed. Vague assertions that it may instead be due to pulsars or LMXBs are optional.

All data used in a published paper should be included in the paper, in an online supplement, in a publicly-accessible archive, or on hard disks in a grad student office buried under a pile of papers. Reel-to-reel tapes and 8-inch floppies are discouraged.