Rejection letters, correspondence, and miscellanea from the otherwise empty annals of the Journal of Universal Rejection.

Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Readers Reject III: Rejection - A Systematic Review

Our third installment of the Readers Reject series features a submission from Gustavo Martins-Coelho, Anneke van der Niet, and Luca Valerio.  As usual, please post your rejection letters in the Comments section.  (As hint, the authors clearly deserve to be rejected for addressing me as "Mr.")

      Dear Mr. Emmons,

                We believe that an updated systematic review on rejection is missing on your prestigious journal. We therefore fill this gap with the current submission.
                Please find below our submission for the JoUR.

                Yours sincerely,
                Gustavo Martins-Coelho
                Anneke van der Niet
                Luca Valerio

Title: Rejection - a systematic review

Authors: Martins/Coelho G, van der Niet A, Valerio L

Rejection is the action of rejecting [1]. It is also a useful tool to dispose of both useless and useful scientific knowledge. The objective of this study is to review rejection as referred to in scientific literature.

We performed a systematic literature review of bibliographic electronic databases and we rejected all the papers that were identified.

From the 74973 papers identified, all were rejected. We thus included 0 papers in the review.

We should not underestimate the impact of rejection for the sake of good scientific literature. Further research is needed in this field.

1. Merriam-Webster Dictionary


  1. Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Martins-Coelho/van der Niet/Valerio,

    Your perusal of the rejected papers in the database did not include your own submission. This oversight means that your submission is rejected.


    Frau Emmons

  2. Dear Martins-Coelho/van der Niet/Valerio,

    Your submission is being rejected due to your inability to follow social norms regarding titles. Clearly Mr. was an inappropriate for our Editor.

    We hope you will continue to submit and in the future use the correct prefix of Miss.


  3. Martins-Coelho et al:

    Your review of rejection is too limited in scope. You rejected every paper in a single database, but there are many works worthy of analyzing in regard to systematic rejection outside of this database. The "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" is one such work. By citing this work you tacitly accepted it, and therefore I must conclude that your systematic rejection was not nearly as thorough as such a worthy study would call for. In order to improve this work and make it as thorough as it deserves, you should, as my colleague Bob O'H (ghost-writing for Frau Emmons) has pointed out, pre-reject your own submission. Please make these minor revisions and promptly fail to resubmit your paper. If you do not submit it again, I can guarantee that I will recommend to the editorial board that it not be rejected.