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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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”.)