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.
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.