Beyond the fact that I think this is the best journal name I have ever heard of, I do agree however with the other points of Andrew Gelman . But it would be fun to have something published in there. I might just have something for them, depending on the number of rejections in journals which do not support the null hypothesis :-).
PS. The comments to Gelman's post above mention also other very interesting journals. My favourites: Journal of Interesting Negative Results and Rejecta Mathematica.
4 comments:
I just spent three minutes on the Rejecta Mathematica (like the name) trying to figure out what kind of articles they publish. Couldn't find any. Guess they rejected all of them :-).
Or, wait a sec, there's the other possibility: everything ever submitted to a peer-reviewed math journal is accepted and published. Thus leaving nothing as a candidate for the Rejecta Mathematica.
Finally, there's the possibility that I wasn't able to locate any of the articles. (Which makes me wonder what's wrong: my IQ or their web-site interface?) Could you?
I think you are right, they do not appear to have any number published yet. I have no clue, to be honest I just liked the name as well, but did not bother to actually look for articles... I guess nobody submitted anything.
The thing is more general (for instance, also referring to the other journals mentioned here), obviously> these journals are not "recognized", so why would you submit there whatsoever? The opportunity cost of writing a paper is typically quite high, so you do want it published in a mainstream (read: ISI list journal) anyway... If it is not good enough to make it in any journal (in fact I would be way more drastic> it does not even matter if it could make it in an ISI journal that nobody reads...), then perhaps your comparative advantage is not in that discipline...
On the other hand, these journals can be fun and if you happent to have too much time, why not, but if and only if then...
Well, considering that the copyright notice on the web-site is dated 2007, that allows for quite some time to have had someone send them some materials.
As for why to bother publishing in "underground" journals. I see two reasons:
(1) Since you already made the initial effort of writing an article (which was supposedly rejected by other "brand-name" journals), why not publish it in a place that has a better chance of accepting it? You have nothing to loose. (Unless there's some stigma associated with being published there.) And the "cost" of writing it is already paid, so...
(2) Why not? The same reason 90+% of blogs exist.
Anyway... in the case of Rejecta Mathematica -- maybe all they (the site owners) ever wanted was to sell some t-shirts and coffee mugs with the logo... If so, we might actually talk about a success story here :-)...
Obviously this is still speculation, but why wouldn\t you publish if you receive something, they themselves say there is no refereeing process. I guess you should contact one of the editor to clarify the issue :-).
Here\s at least one reason why your reasoning does not work: you just don\t write papers that cannot be published within Science (this is not the blogosphere, my friend...); or you don't do it repeatedly. There is quite a range of publications that at least have an impact factor (again, from my perspective that is hardly anything though)> if it does not go anywhere, then you should switch jobs. I guess the journal would make some sense (cf. the \fun\ part I mentioned in my post) when you're a more established researcher and really do not care and that frustration of not being accepted in the, say, top 10 journals, makes you send it directly here. I had the same idea in the previous comment.
Post a Comment