Interesting concept for a journal

Spotted at Downtown Books & News, Asheville, NC – The Rejected Quarterly, fine literature rejected at least five times. Interesting idea that may or may not play out in the sciences. Still, you gotta love the moxie.

I guess the proof is in the pudding: I didn’t actually buy it. Went with Creative Nonfiction, #42, instead.

Matt Thompson is Project Cataloger at The Mariners' Museum in Newport News, Virginia, and currently working on a CLIR 'hidden collections' grant to describe the museum's collection of early 20th Century photography. He has a doctorate in anthropology from the University of North Carolina and a Masters in information science from the University of Tennessee.

4 thoughts on “Interesting concept for a journal

  1. From a scientific perspective, five rejections will almost always indicate a bad paper. But what about a list of papers that were initially rejected, but subsequently published? That would be interesting. Path-breaking work is often rejected once or twice. Mark Granovetter’s paper on the strength of weak ties was initially rejected with an incredibly scathing lengthy review by a top sociology journal. It was later published, to become one of the most influential and widely-cited papers in the social sciences. A couple of my more innovative papers were rejected by at least one journal before finding a home. Reviewers for Current Anthropology, for example, were quite traditional and had no idea what I was trying to accomplish (in a paper about the modern relevance of ancient cities). A British archaeology journal figured it out, however. Now, thinking of Granovetter, I am just waiting for the zillions of citations that are bound to come……………..

  2. There’s a similar journal publishing math papers:

    From the Web site:
    “At Rejecta Mathematica we believe that many previously rejected papers (even those rejected for legitimate reasons) can nonetheless have a very real value to the academic community. This value may take many forms:
    “mapping the blind alleys of science”: papers containing negative results can warn others against futile directions;
    “reinventing the wheel”: papers accidentally rederiving a known result may contain new insight or ideas;
    “squaring the circle”: papers discovered to contain a serious technical flaw may nevertheless contain information or ideas of interest;
    “applications of cold fusion”: papers based on a controversial premise may contain ideas applicable in more traditional settings;
    “misunderstood genius”: other papers may simply have no natural home among existing journals.”

    Good points, I think. Perhaps we could use something similar in anthropology?

Comments are closed.