This new journal doesn’t seem to have the haughtiness seen by some other journals. I hope they provide letters suitable for framing. I suggest everyone submit a paper here at least twice, because as we know, three’s a charm.
Here’s the journal:
See it here: http://www.math.pacificu.edu/~emmons/JofUR/
The founding principle of the Journal of Universal Rejection (JofUR) is rejection. Universal rejection. That is to say, all submissions, regardless of quality, will be rejected. Despite that apparent drawback, here are a number of reasons you may choose to submit to the JofUR:
You can send your manuscript here without suffering waves of anxiety regarding the eventual fate of your submission. You know with 100% certainty that it will not be accepted for publication. There are no page-fees. You may claim to have submitted to the most prestigious journal (judged by acceptance rate). The JofUR is one-of-a-kind. Merely submitting work to it may be considered a badge of honor. You retain complete rights to your work, and are free to resubmit to other journals even before our review process is complete. Decisions are often (though not always) rendered within hours of submission.
h/t to Bishop Hill
Yikes! I sent them a paper which was so bad they accepted it!
REPLY: Did you send them one of Mann’s papers? Now THAT would be funny. – Anthony
Do we at least get a red-penciled (copy-edited) MS. back?
Journal of Universal Rejection….catchy. Back in high school I used to carry around a notebook of bad poetry I had written. I used to call it “The Blue Notebook”. I ran into it in a box in the closet a few months back. What a painful read! “Journal of Universal Rejection” would have been a better title!
Also, since the paper will not be published, you won’t have to worry about coming up with creative ways to stonewall people who want to see your raw data.
And don’t forget, all submissions are treated with exactly the same level of respect. No whining about favoritism is allowed.
(What a hoot!)
I suspect this is an experiment to see how many people they can get to link to this. And it’s very link worthy too!!!
Brilliant! I love it.
It is not clear whether submissions must be accompanied by complete archived data and any code, to enable replication. Perhaps the Journal doesn’t want to place such an arduous requirement on hard-working authors – or perhaps it just wants to keep to the standard practices of more famous Journals?
Sounds interesting, but…
will the rejected papers be peer reviewed?
Its just like submitting to Nature, only without the phony excuse of peer review.
I understand they have a dating service as well.
I was rejected before; now I’m even more rejected 🙁
Instead of UK pounds, maybe payment should be mandated in Aruban florin. Payments in any other currency would be … rejected.
What a hoot! LOL
Submit a paper?
OK – I submit the New York Times.
hehe
This sounds like my dating experiences in college. The gals I liked didn’t like me; the gals that like me I didn’t like. I’m still single.
Well, at least their publication costs should set a record low.
Just a cover page, now that’s a unique thought.
What a relief, you no longer have to write sensational…
…to think about selling magazines
We always used to submit to the Journal of Irreproducible Results. I gather it’s now over run with climate science articles.
I don’t need a journal submission to feel rejected. 😉
Back when I was in College; well we called it University back then; College was (snooty) high school; there was a select mebership club called the Society for Independent Intellectuals. It seems that the agenda of ALL of their meetings was simply to decide what the charter, and aims of the Society should be. I’m sure that it still exists; becasue for sure they haven’t decided what to do yet.
Maybe they could be paper referees for the JUR. I’m sure they could spread out the review process, until somebody had published a contrary paper in some other jounal; or even submitted one to the JUR.
You can then reference your never to be accepted paper as ‘Submitted for publication, JUR, 2011’. And through a tortuous, and or circular sequence of referrals, employ this technique to support previously refuted work in the next IPCC report.
(Sorry if this gives away the game plan Phil, Mike, and Gavin)
A perfect companion to the Journal of Irreproducible Results!!
http://www.jir.com/
.
I hope this isn’t going to be yet another journal with a paywall.
Can I be a reviewer and pad my c.v.?
I believe that this can only be successful where the rejection letter is truly a dead rat, accusing the writer of all sorts of malfeasance through innuendo, as in:
Further to your submission.
On the advice of our review committee and on the basis of objective academic standards we question the veracity of your research and completeness of your attribution (or visa versa, as applicable).
Admittedly, your thesis has merit, but we suspect that your data was either cherry picked, massaged, adjusted or otherwise “played with”. Your insistence on providing your data and details on your modelling and algorithms was irksome, as we don’t pretend, warrant or guarantee that we understand it.
Depending on your resilience, you may wish to resubmit this paper, but not here. We pride ourselves on publishing only those papers that are indeed unassailable, so we publish none.
Yours respectfully
Wait. Having submitted your paper to JUR you can still let PR department of the university issue a press release. If it has the right buzzwords, MSM would catch it up and your funding is secured for another year or two. What can be more convenient than that?
Where do you find this stuff? How do you find this stuff?
After reading this, I think I’ll file for a patent after all on an invention that I thought of several years ago while writing a report at work. While editing, I printed and shredded so many copies that it occurred to me that I ought to invent an interface directly from my computer to the shredder to save walking back and forth from the printer.
Brilliant! A few papers to them and I might achieve my lifelong ambition of being a complete failure … except … errr …
ZT says:
January 25, 2011 at 1:53 pm
You can then reference your never to be accepted paper as ‘Submitted for publication, JUR, 2011′. And through a tortuous, and or circular sequence of referrals, employ this technique to support previously refuted work in the next IPCC report.
—————————————
More importantly, you can then issue an alarmist press release which will be publicised widely by the MSM saying:
According to the findings of a recent research paper which has been submitted for publication in the prestigious scientific journal JUR, it’s worse than we thought ….
Completely off topic, but has anyone read this report out of my home country, Canada, copyrighted 2010?
http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/studies/climate-impacts/report/degrees-of-change-report-eng.pdf
I am just reading it now. Just curious as to how many holes are in this report and thought some of the more adept readers would enjoy poking at it.
But us skeptical scientists already have ana dequate number of journals like this one with universal rejection in place. What’s new?
Wait…. maybe this is a new kind of journal for the AGW climatologists.
Now that makes sense.
Gary says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“Can I be a reviewer and pad my c.v.?”
I’ll save them the response; no. You don’t fit the criteria. You have no merit. You are rejected.
next
This Blog Kicks Butt!
I am new here….and I need help! I have been in several major “Political Global Climate Change” debates, and I can’t seem to be able to stand my ground when my opponent uses old fashion propoganda and Salinksy style tactics.
I presented the Gerlich and Tscheschner Paper, not sure if that was a mistake, but I am trying to dispute the “Greehouse Effect” after comments of some new Mathmatical Logic Calculation supposedely refutes it.
The issues is the role of CO2 in relation to the role of the Sun! Please Help!
I’d like to participate as a member of the Peer Review Committee, for scholarly submissions to JoUR. I am eminently qualified to reject any and all scientific tomes, regardless of merit or accuracy.
If you ask me about my qualifications, I’ll happily reject your inquiry also!!!!!
Jimi says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm
“[…]”
About the Co2 Greenhouse effect, here is a VERY VERY insightful article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
But what to do with Papers that are SO bad they shouldn’t be rejected?
How can it possibly compete with the Journal of Irreproducible Results?
Especially since it has published the One Graph proving all theories!
All articles submitted electronically will be archived on a WOM.
(Write Only Memory)
Where may I purchase a subscription?
It will be the most accurate journal ever!
A real breakthrough.
INGSOC says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Gary says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“Can I be a reviewer and pad my c.v.?”
I’ll save them the response; no. You don’t fit the criteria. You have no merit. You are rejected.
next
————————————
But you CAN put on your CV that you were under consideration as a reviewer for that journal.
@David L. Hagen says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:40 pm
“How can it possibly compete with the Journal of Irreproducible Results?
Especially since it has published the One Graph proving all theories!“
http://jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#MoreGraphs
ROFLMAO! That is the funniest graph ever! Thank you very much!
Oh gosh! I just checked to see if I got the link right and I still can’t stop laughing!
This reminds me of Prof Rick Trebino’s attemp(s) to get his paper published in a journal: click
Funny but factual.
Anthony,
Would be fantastic to see the phraise of “Universal rejection of Global Warming Theory”.
Hate to say it but it reminds me when
I was a much younger man & seeking the affections of the opposite sex. ‘Journal of Rejection’.
Can I submit my marriage certificate?
Travis B says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Completely off topic, but has anyone read this report out of my home country, Canada, copyrighted 2010?
http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/studies/climate-impacts/report/degrees-of-change-report-eng.pdf
—————————————————————————————
Travis – I thought this article was complet tripe, repeating predetermined outcomes from like thinking people.
But what is really scary is in looking at their data and their sourcing, it appears Environment Canada has joined the “TEAM” :
Canada, Environment Canada / Environnement Canada. AHCCD: Adjusted Historical Canadian Climate Data / DCCAH: Donnees climatiques canadiennes ajustees et …
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/hccd/ – Cached – Similar
Looks like using ADJUSTED data to make your case is the flavour of the day. Write your MP. Maybe they can start using “ADJUSTED” votes in the next election. Politicians would love this sort of method, so much easier than writing programs to adjust electoral boundaries in a favourable way (one of my early GIS research jobs, not saying it was ever actually done).
Have Viscount Monckton of Brenchley as one of the listed reviewers, and you can call it Peer Reviewed.
(Peer as in “peer of the realm”.)
Jimi says:
January 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm
This Blog Kicks Butt!
“I am new here….and I need help!”
Apart from the back articles here, skip over to Jo Nova and obtain her “The Skeptics Handbook” now available in ten languages. (see link on sidebar).
Jimi,
The null hypothesis – the hypothesis against which the alternative hypothesis [CO2 will cause runaway global warming] must be tested – has never been falsified.
When your friends ask about your arguments, tell them that those promoting their CO2 hypothesis must show that CO2 makes a measurable difference. In fact, it does not.
The only measurable effect of the increase in CO2 is increased agricultural output. There is no quantifiable harm to the planet from more CO2.
Since the null hypothesis has never been falsified, the alternative hypothesis – that CO2 will make a difference – has been falsified. QED.
Reading these articles and comments will make you much more comfortable with the subject. Climate alarmists have no empirical [real world] evidence showing that the current climate is any different from the climate over the past ten millennia.
All they have are computer models [not evidence] and true belief. That’s not enough to make a case for dismantling Western civilization.
I suggest everyone submit a paper here at least twice, because as we know, three’s a charm.
Done:
Dear Mr. Emmons,
Having learned of your Emmonent publication from the eminent meteorologist Anthony Watts, I am inspired to submit for your inconsideration, not one, but THREE (3) research papers, as follows:
JOHN’S LAW
Abstract:
Human children are socialized from earliest years not to ignore other persons in close proximity. (This explains many awkward situations when perfect strangers find themselves in crowded elevators.) Elementary school teaching is a science which has yet to understand how this socialization interacts with classroom environmental factors to produce undesirable student behaviors. In this study, the lead investigator argues that the frequency of such behaviors vary inversely as the square of the distance between student desks, for some as yet undetermined range of distances. It is believed, however, that the curve becomes discontinuous when the desks actually make contact.
JOHN’S HYPOTHESIS
Abstract:
Most school classrooms have one interior wall from which the majority of instruction is given. In many classrooms, desks are arranged so that children are seated 90 degrees from that wall. Children in this seating arrangement must turn their heads 90 degrees to see what the teacher is doing at the front of the room. In a few classrooms, the desks are arranged in various lesser angles with relation to the front. The lead investigator has not actually observed arrangements at greater angles, but that cannot be ruled out. In this paper he proposes that the time students actually attend to the teacher’s instruction will vary directly with the cosine of the seating angle, reaching an normalized zero with the students backs are to the teacher. The writer calls for further research into the interaction betwen JOHN’S CONJECTURE and JOHN’S HYPOTHESIS for the frequent situation in which the desks are arranged into two rows facing each other at +90 and -90 degrees.
JOHN’S CONJECTURE
Abstract:
The research shows with incontrovertible certainty that teacher intelligence (IQ) can be mathematically derived by empirical observation of classroom desk arrangement.
Then there’s Murphy again. Should read between JOHN’S LAW and JOHN’S HYPOTHESIS….
And their response…. : >)
Caleb Emmons
to me
show details 8:04 PM (1 hour ago)
Thank you for your interest in the Journal of Universal Rejection.
Due to the high volume of correspondence we are currently receiving,
it may be some time until yours is properly answered. If you have
included a submission, rest assured that it has been filed and is
under review. We will get back to you as soon as possible.
—
Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection
Hm, in the tradition of The Journal of Negative Results.
http://www.jnr-eeb.org/index.php/jnr/index
They seem to reject most submissions, or else they don’t get many.
Every author should submit to the JUR simultaneously with any and every other journal his paper goes to. Then record which rejection comes back faster.
Even D-word users would have their papers rejected at the JUR.
John
I trust the Journal will also have a website where the will publish, each day, the worst paper rejected. It will, naturally, be called Rejection du JoUR
The mere existence of this journal is a boon to the industry of refereeing scientific papers. the next refereeing job I get in which I find it hard to articulate in nice terms exactly how bad the manuscript is, I think I’ll write: “The article does not meet the standards of this journal and so rejection is recommended, but based on the intrinsic merits found within the work, the referee strongly recommends, in case the authors still wish to submit it for publication, that they consider submitting it to JoUR, which is known to have the highest standards and are likely to give the paper its proper due.”
As a matter of fact just this afternoon I dealt with precisely such a paper. Wish I had read the article earlier.