{"id":146,"date":"2009-08-10T09:39:05","date_gmt":"2009-08-10T14:39:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2009\/08\/10\/rejecta-mathematica\/"},"modified":"2009-08-10T09:39:05","modified_gmt":"2009-08-10T14:39:05","slug":"rejecta-mathematica","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2009\/08\/10\/rejecta-mathematica\/","title":{"rendered":"Rejecta Mathematica"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A <a href=\"http:\/\/math.rejecta.org\/\">new online journal<\/a> that publishes only articles rejected by peer-reviewed journals. (HT: <a href=\"http:\/\/freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com\/2009\/08\/10\/the-rejects-journal\/\">Freakonomics<\/a>, which got it from the Economist.)<\/p>\n<p>The obvious question is what&#8217;s the point of such a thing.\u00a0 The editors address this in a <a href=\"http:\/\/math.rejecta.org\/vol1-num1\/1-3\">letter<\/a> accompanying the first issue, making a number of valid points: Good research is sometimes wrongly rejected.\u00a0 Moreover, there&#8217;s value in publishing even results that turn out to be dead ends, if only to prevent other people from wandering down the same dead ends.\u00a0 But here&#8217;s where they fail to convince me:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>While such a project as Rejecta Mathematica would have been impracticable in the pre-internet age, the \u00ef\u00ac\u201aood of resources available today begs another oft-posed question: &quot;Why do we need a new journal? Isn&#39;t this what a preprint server (like the arXiv), a blog, or a personal website is for?&quot;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>My usage-pedant hackles get raised at the <a href=\"http:\/\/begthequestion.info\/\">misuse of &#8220;beg the question,&#8221;<\/a> but that&#8217;s not really the point.\u00a0 Mostly, I just don&#8217;t think they have a good answer to this question.\u00a0 This journal would solve some of the problems the editors have identified, <em>if the right people would read it<\/em>.\u00a0 But I don&#8217;t see how that&#8217;s ever going to happen.\u00a0 In particular, an author who wants to get people to notice his rejected paper can and should put it on the <a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/\">arXiv<\/a>, which will be a much more effective strategy than publishing it here.\u00a0 [Note:The arXiv does require an &#8220;endorsement,&#8221; but frankly, the bar there is set pretty low, and if you can&#8217;t get someone to endorse your paper, that&#8217;s a pretty solid indication that you need to fix either the work or your communication skills.]<\/p>\n<p>Still, Rejecta Mathematica is an interesting experiment, and I hope it does prove useful to some people.\u00a0 The editors did get one thing exactly right: along with each article, the authors must supply an open letter explaining the rejection history of the article.\u00a0 These letters are extremely revealing: some contain reasoned discussion, while others are frankly rants.\u00a0 If I were to look at this journal regularly, that would be my main guide as to which articles were worth a closer look.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A new online journal that publishes only articles rejected by peer-reviewed journals. (HT: Freakonomics, which got it from the Economist.) The obvious question is what&#8217;s the point of such a thing.\u00a0 The editors address this in a letter accompanying the first issue, making a number of valid points: Good research is sometimes wrongly rejected.\u00a0 Moreover, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2009\/08\/10\/rejecta-mathematica\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Rejecta Mathematica<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}