Attention: Physical Review Letters Editor
Dear Editor,
We are submitting our manuscript entitled “For Efficient Use of Daily Time: more Science Will Lead to Faster Improvement of Society”, to be considered for publication in Physical Review Letters.
Within the wide scope of breakthroughs allowed by the field of taking advantage of human minds, science has become one of the most remarkable developments. It is pointless to mention here the great progress that science has made in improving our quality of life, from great medical milestones to technological solutions that were unthinkable just a short time ago, for instance, with solutions that range from coat hangers to menstrual cups. Specifically, the Physical Review Portfolio offers a sample of these advances over the past centuries, bearing witness to a melting pot of wisdom that will continue to expand the frontiers of knowledge.
However, some voices in the scientific community propose using daily time for more mundane tasks, such as tidying up the kitchen or scheduling the Roomba. “A tidy house is a house in which you can work better” may be a valid argument to convince an infant; nevertheless, the authors of this work are opposed to slogans, and we have scientifically demonstrated that you can make better use of your time than doing trivial tasks. Specifically, the essay accompanying this letter emphasizes making the bed, as seen in one of the paper’s conclusions: “Making the bed daily is a waste of time that will prevent scientists from curing cancer or getting to Mars.”
The work we propose here provides scientific data and insights on using time better, showing that, for instance, even the time devoted to this study is better spent than cleaning the cat’s litter box. Although reading the article may seem like a waste of time, its importance in persuading the community to focus on what is important makes this paper worthy of being read.
Our work represents a first approach to the efficient use of daily time and proposes unquestionable facts against wasting time. Hence, our proposal has the potential to become a new standard in the design, characterization, and solution of domestic talks, pushing this field into a new direction. Moreover, given the analogy between homes and offices, the proposed technique could be easily extended to academic institutions, proving that our work is more useful to society than cleaning our lab mugs. Finally, according to discordant people with this work, our article could be part of the bibliography on gender works against hetero-patriarchy in the scientific field, which could be a blessing in disguise via increasing the cites to this work.
For the above reasons, we believe Physical Review Letters is the most appropriate journal to disseminate our results.
Sincerely yours,
James Smith (on behalf of all the authors)