Long story short, we were immediately reprimanded. The secretary was told not to type any further manuscripts for us (recall that half the study was incomplete) until we signed an agreement to cease and desist further work on the study. This was the least punitive reaction, it turned out. DPP was coming up for his 5th year tenure review at this time, and the editor's reaction assumed a central part of that process. DPP was roundly criticized for exercising poor judgment in doing a study that could jeopardize the ability of colleagues to publish. (SJC was treated more leniently, under the assumption that he was too new to realize the poor decision he made to do this study, whereas DPP should have known better.) DPP was denied tenure. This led to a lengthy appeals process with affidavits by most members of the psychology department, numerous internal reviews at the college and university level. Interestingly, these reviews recommended that DPP be given tenure, given that his prior annual reviews had been positive. While the appeals process was wending its way through the system, something truly fortuitous occurred. All clinically-accredited programs must be re-accredited every 5 years. The process involves sending out the records of all faculty to an external team of reviewers appointed by the American Psychological Association (APA). Then, this team visits the department and meets with faculty and makes its recommendation with regard to reaccreditation.