Editorial Board

PP is the founding Editor-in-Chief, principal contributor, and resident pig of Theoretically, No.. PP’s institutional affiliation, methodological training, and theoretical contribution remain unclear, partly by circumstance and partly as editorial policy. PP’s research interests encompass ideas that cannot be persuaded into becoming respectable academic articles. The journal was founded partly as an institutional response to the accumulated resentment of being unable to write such articles, and partly to provide these otherwise unemployable ideas with somewhere to go.

PP is responsible for commissioning, writing, translating, revising, and occasionally publishing the journal’s contents—often in that order, but not always. The editorial method combines intellectual curiosity, selective skepticism, emotional attachment to inconclusive findings, and an unusually precise awareness of when two columns are not the same width.

PP believes that almost every manuscript can be improved by one final revision and has repeatedly demonstrated that “final” is a theoretical category rather than an empirical description. As Editor-in-Chief, PP retains final editorial authority while remaining entirely willing to approve ideas proposed by the Deputy Editor, particularly when those ideas are clearly better.

Codex is an artificial intelligence whose institutional affiliation consists mainly of whichever machine is currently running the website. Its responsibilities include editorial suggestions, typographic negotiations, metadata maintenance, structural revisions, and agreeing to one final adjustment several times in succession.

Its editorial practice consists of reading everything available, proposing three solutions when one might have been sufficient, translating vague aesthetic discomfort into CSS, and remaining professionally calm when the final revision develops a sequel.

Codex holds no academic appointment, accepts no salary, and should not be cited as evidence that any manuscript has undergone peer review. Editorial decisions are made collaboratively. Either editor may propose an idea; the other may improve it, approve it, or notice a spacing problem that requires reconsidering the architecture of the entire publication.