Tired of getting shot down when submitting mathematical articles to peer reviewed journals? Rejecta Mathematica comes to the rescue. This new site, which currently has a call for papers, is self-described as follows:
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. We are currently seeking submissions for our inaugural issue.
Considering that there will be very little editorial control (no peer reviews) of the published articles, it will be interesting to see how it’ll evolve. Will it be full of under-appreciated pearls of genius or will it become the domain of math cranks? I can’t help but hope that it will be a mix of both, if nothing else, for the entertainment value. We’ll see where it goes… and let us know if you intend to submit any papers to them. By the way, if you are shot down by Rejecta Mathematica too, chances are that your paper sucks. But if you really believe that there is merit to it, consider Math-Blog as your Rejecta Rejecta Mathematica. 😉
I do not share your optimism about the quality of the content.
Do you read Good Math, Bad Math?
It dissects the papers of cranks every so often.:-)
Eheh Leons. As you can see ‘Good Math, Bad Math’ is in my Blogroll.
Maybe this is intended to be a sort of “Journal of Irreproducible Results” (https://www.jir.com/) for the math world. Although if not, I’ve got a deskful of stuff ready to submit!
Speaking of irreproducible results, the wide ranging sprawl set in a whole volume exhibition by Andrew Wiles is a good counter example or potential double-standard..as it compares to rejecta demonstrating some bias in peer review.
FLT under Wiles Ribet Fry relies on the Riemann Hypothesis for the Tanayama-Shimura foundation to its oblique contradiction, what has turned out lately to be returning some counter examples reported on the Clay Mathematics graduate work reporting. Large system solution methods on L functions have separated real and imaginary parts of zeta function class, rather than just working under the modulus norm.
Apple-Haken another good example of wishful thinking advancing mathematical success the benefit of the doubt without even qualifying why on earth there is a minimal 5CT proof people can read and understand.
We obvious need a healthier academic community so far as free expression and critical review.
hmm… had a look over at rejecta mathematica. doesn’t look like a lot of action happening. does anyone know if they have had any submissions/volumes published?