Rejecta Mathematica

There is a new journal:

Rejecta Mathematica is a new, open access, online journal that
publishes only papers that have been rejected from peer-reviewed
journals (or conferences with comparable review standards) in the
mathematical sciences.

Isn't that like almost every other journal?  Not quite:

Many authors of a rejected paper may simply have disagreed with or
chosen to not address the original reviewers' concerns. Rejecta
Mathematica also gives those authors the chance to speak out in defense
of their own paper.

One very unique aspect of Rejecta Mathematica is that each paper
includes an open letter from the authors discussing the paper's
original review process, disclosing any known flaws in the paper and
stating the case for the paper's value to the community.

Triya offers comment.  Maybe they should start a comparable journal for rejected blog posts…

Comments

The whole point of journals is to weed out the papers of little merit because nobody has time to read all the crap and to make sure its right. That said it would seem much better to create a youtube/google/wikipedia model where papers are submitted and reviewers rate them and highly cited papers rise to the top.

"Maybe they should start a comparable journal for rejected blog posts..."

Not such thing. What are you on about???

I'm dubious. There are a lot of mathematical crackpots out there-- why won't this just become a huge pile of garbage?

I believe the Rejecta Mathematica site is a joke. Mathematics has a tendency to give journals Latin names (Inventiones Mathematicae, Compositio Mathematica, etc.), and for decades mathematicians have joked about listing rejected papers as appearing in "Rej. Math." (abbreviated the same way as "Inv. Math."). This web site is the internet version of that joke. It was announced in 2007 and has yet to publish a single paper, so I imagine the site's creators aren't actually serious about running a journal. It's too bad - I don't think it would have led to anything worthwhile, probably just a bunch of crank or low-quality papers, but it would have been fun to see what appeared there.

I'm on the side of not really seeing the point of this. Why is it better than an obscure low-prestige journal?

If people care about which journal you published in, then this won't look good. If people use journals as a filter for which papers to look at, then this won't be a useful filter.

If neither of these apply (you don't need the prestige and your readers know your name or read everything on the topic) then how is this better than putting your paper on your website (as in CS) or on the archive (as in physics, arxiv.org)?

The idea of a cover letter explaining why journals won't publish this seems like a gimmick. If you have anything persuasive to say in it, why didn't you say it in your abstract or introduction?

I hear the Obama budget plan is the first to be published there.

There should be at least a website where you could send papers and rejection letters. Especially from reviewers who rejected the paper recommending you to do precisely what you have in Section 3. That would be awesome.

No, I am not bitter.

My first hunch was that it's a joke. My second hunch was that if it's not a joke it's an attempt to expose the bankruptcy of the review session. My third hunch is if that's what it is, the review process will come out looking pretty good in the end...

I can just imagine its equivalent journal, Rejecta Historica (aka Rej. Hist.). Lots and lots of articles about Civil War Battles and the origins of the pyramids. Unfortunately, also a lot of articles trying to talk their way out of the Holocaust.

I believe that it has ceased to exist, but for quite some time there
was actually a journal called The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
It was mostly a joke, but not entirely. It was also subscribed to
by some pretty major university libraries.

If this were done in physics, it would be called The Refuse of Modern Physics.

Comments for this post are closed