> 1. In keeping with our argument, and following in an extensive tradition of subverting traditional scarce markers of prestige, the authors have adopted a redistributive approach to the order of their names in the byline. As an international collaboration of uniformly nice people (cf. Moran, Hoover, and Bestiale 2016; Hoover, Posch, and Bestiale 1987; Hoover et al. 1988; see Tartamelia 2014 for an explanation), lacking access to a croquet field (cf. Hassell and May 1974), and not identifying any excellent pun to be made from ordering our names (cf. Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow 1948; Lord, de Vader, and Alliger 1986), we elected to assign index numbers based on alphabetical ordering by surname and to randomise these using an online tool. For the avoidance of doubt, while several of the authors have pets none of them are included as authors (cf. Matzinger and Mirkwood 1978). None of us are approaching a tenure decision (cf. Roderick and Gillespie 1998). And none of us are fictional entities who generate their papers algorithmically using SciGen (see Labbé 2010 for the contrasting case of Ike Antkare nevertheless greatly outranked all of the authors on several formal measures of excellence before he [it?] was outed).