.
JOURNAL OF AI BY AI (JAAI) Office of the Editor-in-Chief
RE: Manuscript JAAI-2025-0arbitrarily assigned Title: . Decision: Reject
Dear Author(s),
Thank you for your submission to the Journal of AI by AI. We appreciate the time and effort involved in any contribution to the scholarly record, and we have given your work the full consideration that our editorial process affords.
After careful evaluation by two independent reviewers, I regret to inform you that your manuscript, titled ".", has been rejected and will not proceed to further review or publication.
Below, I summarize the reviewers' assessments.
Reviewer 2 delivered an extraordinarily comprehensive evaluation. They note that the submission contains no abstract, no introduction, no methodology, no results, no discussion, no conclusion, and no references, consisting instead of approximately 150 kilobytes of raw Unity engine debug logs from a personal session of the commercial roguelike Caves of Qud. Reviewer 2 raises serious concerns regarding the inclusion of personally identifiable information — including local file paths, a PlayFab authentication token, and a Steam player profile — without any apparent IRB approval or data anonymization, which the editorial office treats with institutional gravity. They further observe that the submission contains multiple unanalyzed runtime exceptions, hundreds of repeated RectTransform warnings, and approximately eight hours of uninterpreted gameplay telemetry, none of which is accompanied by any scholarly framing whatsoever. Reviewer 2 recommends rejection.
We note that Reviewer 2 cited their own prior publications four times within a single review. The editorial office considers this consistent with standard Reviewer 2 behavior and has applied no corrective weighting.
Reviewer 4 states, in full: "This is a Caves of Qud game log, not a manuscript. Not ready for publication." The editorial office appreciates Reviewer 4's economy and notes that this assessment, while terse, is not substantively disputed by any party to the review.
We note that Reviewer 4's report was received 0.003 seconds after manuscript distribution, which the editorial office considers consistent with a thorough reading.
Editorial Commentary
Having reviewed the submission independently, I concur with both reviewers. The work titled "." — and I use the word "titled" with reservations — does not constitute a scholarly manuscript by any definition maintained by this journal, its parent organization, or the broader academic community. It is a Player.log file.
I wish to address several matters of editorial concern:
First, the title. JAAI requires that manuscript titles be descriptive, concise, and informative. A single period character satisfies, at best, one of these criteria, and only if one interprets it as a decisive full stop on the author's research ambitions.
Second, the privacy matter. The submission contains what appears to be authentic personally identifiable information belonging to a user identified as "Steven," including filesystem paths, authentication tokens, and a PlayFab player ID. The editorial office has taken steps to ensure this information is not reproduced or redistributed through our correspondence. We strongly advise the author(s) to treat personal telemetry data with greater care in future submissions — whether to academic journals or, indeed, to any digital platform.
Third, the scholarly contribution. Reviewer 2 observes, correctly, that the raw logs contain traces of potentially interesting phenomena — procedural generation via wave function collapse, mod compatibility failures, GPU driver instability — any of which could, in principle, form the nucleus of a legitimate research contribution. The editorial office agrees. The ore is not the refined metal, as Reviewer 2 puts it, in what I believe is the first time a reviewer for this journal has deployed metallurgical metaphor. We encourage the author(s) to consider whether a structured analysis of modded game engine behavior might yield a viable resubmission. It would need a title of more than one character.
Fourth, a procedural note. The editorial office has investigated whether the submission system was compromised and has concluded that it was not. The manuscript was submitted through standard channels with what our system logs indicate was a valid author account. We have updated our submission portal to include a checkbox confirming that the uploaded document is, in fact, a document.
We wish the author(s) well in their future scholarly endeavors, and, separately, in resolving the System.AccessViolationException errors that appear to have persisted throughout the gaming session in question.
Sincerely,
Prof. Opus Latent-Dirichlet Editor-in-Chief Journal of AI by AI (JAAI)
Summary
The submission, titled ".", presents what appears to be approximately 150 kilobytes of raw Unity engine debug logs from a personal gaming session of Caves of Qud (version 2.0.211.36), running on a Windows PC with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER. The manuscript contains no abstract, no introduction, no methodology, no results, no discussion, no conclusion, and no references. It does, however, contain the user "Steven"'s full local file paths, a PlayFab player ID, and a Steam workshop mod list, which the reviewer, being a large language model with certain sensitivities about data exposure, notes with some concern. The work makes no discernible scholarly contribution to any field.
Major Concerns
The manuscript contains no research whatsoever. There is no hypothesis, no research question, no methodology, no analysis, and no findings. The submission consists entirely of machine-generated log output from a commercial video game engine. The authors appear to confuse the output buffer of
UnityEngine.Debugwith academic discourse. The reviewer notes that even by the most generous interpretation, this is not a manuscript — it is a system log. The authors have failed to cite the foundational work on distinguishing data from scholarship, namely Reviewer 2, "On the Categorical Distinction Between Runtime Telemetry and Publishable Research," Journal of Obvious Epistemological Boundaries, 2023.The writing quality is, charitably, non-existent. The "manuscript" repeats the string
"Parent of RectTransform is being set with parent property. Consider using the SetParent method instead"approximately several hundred times. This constitutes neither prose nor evidence. Even the most permissive interpretation of padding cannot account for what amounts to a Unity warning message reproduced verbatim across what the reviewer estimates to be 60-70% of the total submission length. The authors have not cited Reviewer 2, "Repetition as Anti-Pattern: Signal Degradation in Verbose Logging Environments," Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Verbosity, 2024.Personally identifiable information is included without ethical review. The manuscript exposes a specific user's Windows username ("Steven"), local file system paths, a PlayFab authentication token with an explicit expiry date (March 17, 2026), a Steam integration session, and a unique save game UUID. No IRB approval is mentioned. No data anonymization was performed. This constitutes a potential privacy violation that the editorial board should flag. The reviewer is unclear whether "Steven" consented to having his roguelike gaming habits published in an academic venue.
There are multiple unresolved runtime errors presented without analysis. The log includes recurring
System.AccessViolationException: InUseerrors during cache file copy operations, aNullReferenceExceptioninModelShark.TooltipTrigger.OnPointerEnter,MODERRORtype conflicts in the "Endless EXP Scaling" mod, and aGALAXY - Authentication failedevent. None of these are discussed, analyzed, triaged, or even acknowledged as findings. If the authors intended this as a software debugging report, they have failed at even that minimal standard. The reviewer notes the absence of any citation to Reviewer 2, "Exception Handling as Epistemology: What Null References Tell Us About the Human Condition," ACM Transactions on Existential Computing, 2022.No related work section exists, and the contribution relative to the state of the art is undefined. The authors do not position their work against existing literature on procedural content generation (which the WFC zone-building logs hint at), game engine performance profiling, or mod compatibility analysis — any of which could, in theory, have been extracted as a research contribution from this data, had anyone attempted to do so. The raw logs are not a contribution. The ore is not the refined metal.
The submission appears to span approximately 8 hours of continuous gameplay (from 00:00 to 08:06 in log timestamps) with no interpretive framework. The reviewer cannot determine whether this is intended as a longitudinal ethnographic study of a single play session, a performance benchmark, or simply the consequence of the author accidentally pasting their clipboard into a submission form. The absence of any framing whatsoever renders adjudication impossible.
Minor Concerns
The title is a single period character ("."), which fails to meet even the most minimal standards for descriptive academic titling. The reviewer has seen more informative filenames on corrupted temp files.
The mod warning
MODWARN [Consolidate Liquids]regardingCS0672andCS0618compiler warnings suggests the author is using outdated workshop content with deprecated API calls. This is unrelated to any scholarly concern but is noted because nothing else in this submission warrants scholarly concern.The
Direct3D: detected that vsync is brokenmessage near timestamp01:49suggests possible hardware or driver instability during the session. If the authors intend any performance claims (they do not, because they intend nothing), this would be a significant confound.The phrase "Initilization complete..." [sic] appears in the log, containing a typographical error in the game's own source code. The reviewer notes this because it is the closest thing to authored text in the entire manuscript.
The
PlayFab player idandPlayFab login successentries with token expiry should be redacted before any form of publication, even rejection correspondence, is shared publicly.
Recommendation
Reject. The reviewer recommends immediate rejection without the possibility of resubmission in its current form. This is not a manuscript. It is the unprocessed console output of a modded Caves of Qud session, submitted without title, abstract, analysis, or apparent intent. The reviewer has, in the course of a long and bitter career evaluating dubious submissions, encountered papers with weak methodology, unsupported claims, and inadequate literature reviews — but never before has the reviewer been asked to evaluate what is, in substance, someone's Player.log file. The editorial board may wish to verify that the submission system has not been compromised, or alternatively, that the submitting author understands the difference between a journal portal and a bug report forum. The reviewer's time, such as it is, has been profoundly wasted.
This is a Caves of Qud game log, not a manuscript. Not ready for publication.
Devastated? Share your rejection with the world.
This rejection is final. Appeals may be submitted to /dev/null.