Welcome

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

Search This Blog

Thursday, August 2, 2012

It Is Written

Dear N      ,

It is my pleasure to respond to your submission of "The Anxiety of Reproduction in Classical Greek Political Theory" to the Journal of Universal Rejection.

It is getting hard to keep up with even a trickle of submissions here at JofUR.  It is sadly true that we're approaching the response-time of some other well-respected journals.  (It is a funny story--I once had a paper out for review for over two years before retracting it to submit elsewhere.)

It is probably all caused by the fact that I got a job.  It is causing me to have so little time that, for example, with your paper, I have decided to just consider the first two words:  "It is..."

It is very bad form to start a paper with "It is..."  It is the worst of beginnings!  It is grounds for immediate rejection.

It is rejected.

Best regards,
Caleb Emmons
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection

Friday, June 22, 2012

Or is it "acceptophobe"?

Dear Luca:

Thank you for submitting your work to the Journal of Universal Rejection.  It is clear that you eagerly await our rejection letter.  I’m sure psychologists have a term for such an unhealthy desire.  Perhaps you may be labeled as a rejectophile?

In any case, we aim to please.  Your work is rejected.  Additionally, I encourage you to seek counseling on your obsession with rejection.

I know you have been waiting to learn the acceptance status of your submission for a few months.  But to paraphrase our journal’s motto, your rejection may have been certain, but the time frame certainly wasn’t.

Best of luck on your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Eric Chicken
Associate Editor
Journal of Universal Rejection



Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Black sheep and scapegoats and chicks, oh my!

The author responds:

Dear Dr Chicken:

I sincerely regret your decision to reject my prospectus.  The following version has been sent to the Journal of Innocuous Poetry and was accepted within a day.  These guys have vision.

There once was an editor called Chicken
Who feared that his chicks could not thicken
By rejecting this act
Chicken was sacked
Whereafter his chicks quickly would sicken

The associate editor politely responds:

Congratulations on finding a suitable journal for your work!  While JofIP has somewhat looser editorial standards then JofUR (after all, they have accepted at least one more manuscript than we ever did) all of us at JofUR are very happy for you.  

As for my being sacked, I'm used to it.  Just this week I've been sacked, bagged, boxed, plucked, shutout, shut up, tied up and tie-dyed.




Dear Sir:

Thank you for submitting your prospective research program entitled “Every black sheep needs a scapegoat” for review at the Journal of Universal Rejection.  I read with interest your plan of combining animal literature, philosophy and poetry.  However, I fear that this melding of research topics has already been exhausted by generations of limerick writers.

You make a claim that my personal doctoral students (my “chicks”) might find this topic interesting.  Let me assure you that at the moment my chicks are mainly interested in keeping my car clean and fueled, my lawn carefully mowed and my shoes well shined (this last being no easy task since I prefer running shoes).  To a lesser extent, they display some interest in generating research.

I encourage you to begin work at once on your proposed research, but please find an alternative venue for publication because we don't want it.

Your prospectus is rejected.

Sincerely,

Eric Chicken
Associate Editor
Journal of Universal Rejection 

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Who Rejects the Watchmen?

Dear Mr. Lanci:

You have no doubt wondered what has become of your submission, VIGILANTISM AND VIOLENCE: THE CASE OF ALAN MOORE’S WATCHMEN, to our illustrious Journal. So do I. Offering, as you say, "the first 5 pages of an article on political theory, vigilantism and comic books I wrote for your journal", one might legitimately (I do love that word, and we will return to it later) wonder why we are only receiving these first five pages.

Do you not trust us with the entirety of your article?  Did you think we might loose even this small handful of pages?  You may have cause for such concern.

As I stood before my Editor-in-Chief's desk yesterday at the Journal's downtown penthouse offices I banged my fist on the tiny island of mahogany peeking out between towers of papers and books and I shouted, "You, sir, are a slob! And what about that raise you promised me after I handled the alien fiasco?"

"Who the hell are you?" he demanded, his cigar bobbing at the side of his mouth.

But I jest. He said, "Ms. Lyris, as one of our most valuable staff editors, if there is anything at all I can do to make you happy, you have only to say it and I shall make it so."

Again, I jest. He grumbled as we excavated your submission--the first five pages, anyway--from under a mountain of worn copies of GHOST WORLD, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, DREAM COUNTRY, MAUS, V FOR VENDETTA, and the like.

Let us examine these five pages, shall we?

The key thing to note, Mr. Lanci, when discussing a work as seminal as WATCHMEN is to avoid referring to it as a "comic book". It is a graphic novel. With me so far?

And is it truly, as you suggest, a "privileged, and unusual, tool of research"? Sure, I've felt privileged to read my graphic novels, and yes, of course it is research--on life, the universe, and everything. But unusual? I don't think so. Not for decades, my friend.

This is where your article gets off on the wrong foot: you're telling us graphic novel "researchers" that we're not first-class citizens.  But we read stories about people like us turning into superheros all the time and that's as first class as you can get. You subtly imply we're weirdos and that gets our panties in twists and makes us less favorably inclined toward your academically oriented self. Not that our feelings are easily hurt or anything.

Lastly, defending the legitimacy (there's that word again) of Science Fiction as a literary art form is not going to make you any friends in the genre. I mean, really. We know we're literarily legit. (Say that three times fast.)

But obliquely insulting this editor is not enough to get you rejected. No sir, not here at the Journal. I was tempted to reject your work on the grounds that it is not a complete work, but that also does not make you unusual.

No, indeed. We reject your article on the grounds that it is lacking sufficient footnotes. We like footnotes, especially in our academically toned articles, and yours just doesn't have enough of them.

Best of luck with your future endeavors [1],

Sonia Lyris

P.S. I notice we both have last names beginning with "L" that are five letters long. That also did not help you.

[1] Which we hope will have more pages.

Sonia Lyris, Fiction and Political Theory Editor
Journal of Universal Rejection

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Rejecting Dr. Moriarty

Dr. Moriarty sent us a submission.  I hope it wasn't editorial bias to send it to Editor Holmes for a first-look!  (Now that I think of it, they may have had some run-in in the past.)

In any case, the rejection stands, but I find it astonishing how much Editor Holmes could glean from reading the poem.  Here is the poem for reference:


The Lament of Farmer Dillon
by Dr. Patrick Moriarty

‘We’ll all be rooned’, said Bernard
‘You mark my words’, he said.
‘The price of milk is going down
We’ll soon be in the red.’


‘I planted spuds again this year
I thought that would be nice
The river rose and drowned the crop
I should have planted rice.’


His wife, his children, gather near
The better his wise words to mark.
‘We’ll soon be eating cabbage stew
And shivering in the dark.’


Bernard, Bernard, lighten up
Things are not so bad
May this bottled present help you
Be a little bit more glad.


and Holmes' response:

Dear Dr. Moriarty


Thank you for submitting your poem to the Joor'nal of Universal Rejection.  I see from the verse that you continue your work as an evil mastermind.


I gathered from the first stanza that you taught Civil Engineering, probably somewhere in the Africa until the late 1970s.  The second stanza strongly hints that you research urban land use (Asian and Australian I presume).  From the third stanza it is clear that you dabble in alternative energy (perhaps trying to be 'hip').  Finally I can surmise that you are a fan of Omar Khayyam.


Law enforcement has been notified, but they told me they didn't have any charges against you.  Imbeciles!  We shall see.


You may rest assured your submission is rejected.


Yours--archly,
S. Holmes
Editor, Journal of Universal Rejection

Sunday, March 11, 2012

From JofUR with ♥

To every author we've ever rejected:
It's not that we don't like you.  (At least, not all of you.)
It's not you, it's us.
Castle video interlude:
That's all for now.
Like, JofUR.

Monday, March 5, 2012

The State of the University

Call for Submissions
the Journal of Universal Rejection
respectfully solicits manuscripts on

"The State of the University"

 
Learning lagging?
Tuition taking off?
Journals jinxed?
Adjuncts agitating?
Horrendous hazing? 
Police presence? 
Problem not easily expressed with alliteration?

→ We want to hear about it at the Journal of Universal Rejection.  Send your opinion piece to j.universal.rejection@gmail.com (signed or anonymous).

We'll blog your letter at Reprobatio Certa, Tweet wildly about it, and ultimately reject you.  (We are pro status quo.)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Archer Urges Caution


Dear Sir:

Thank you for considering the Journal of Universal Rejection for the publication of your astronomy manuscript.  The extent of my knowledge of astronomy is a vague understanding of the effect of the zodiac on the stock market.  Our editor assures me this more than qualifies me to review your paper, so let's get right to it.

On the cover page you provided blanks for recording the dates of "received"  and "accepted".  Such optimism!  I received your paper on December 20. This places your submission under the zodiac sign of Sagittarius the archer.  Consulting various reliable sources, I see that for a paper submitted under the influence of the archer the following are applicable:

(1) "You will be lucky in matters of love" 

(2) "Be generous to strangers"

(3) "Avoid physical confrontations with clowns and mimes" 

(4) "Careless acceptance leads to universal destruction and misery" 

Let's review these:  (1) There’s a first time for everything.  (2) Good for your karma.  (3) Excellent advice at any time.  (4) Your paper is rejected.

Have a pleasant day.

Eric Chicken
Associate Editor

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Time for the Metric System

Dear Dr. E           ,

Thank you for submitting your screed "Going Metric: a Renewed Call for Adoption of the Metric System in the U.S." to the Journal of Universal Rejection.

In your fluffy opinion piece your central claim is that "it is high time for the U.S. to move to the metric system."

We are not going to publish your piece.  It is not because you don't have a good point about the metric system.  On the contrary, it's that you do not go far enough.  You chicken out in the same way that whatever Europeons did in whatever century when they moved to the metric system, or whatever (I'm currently boycotting Wikipedia, so cannot fill in facts like this).


How is it that you do not go far enough?  You inadvertently mentioned it when you say it is "high time" to move to the metric system.  Yes, it is time to switch to the meter, the kilogram, and the secoond.  What is a secoond?  Well the day would be broken into 10 hoors, each hoor would have 100 minootes, and every minoote would have 100 secoonds.  Hence the day would be a 100 kilosecoonds long. 

For those interested in the transition, 1 secoond = 0.864 seconds.  So it's not all that different.

We'd have to get rid of the year.  We'd use the yoor = 1 kiloday 2.73785079 years.  Birthdays would be rarer.   We'd all be younger!

Best,
Caleb

Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The Boycott of Elsevier

Missive from the Editor-in-Chief:


There has been much discussion and support for the unfolding boycott of Elsevier journals ignited by mathematician Tim Gowers in this blog post and discussed in this Chronicle article.  Over 2000 academics have signd the pledge here to not to publish in, or otherwise support, Elsevier journals.

I, however, must throw my support on the side of Elsevier.

Indeed, I vow to never publish in the Journal of Universal Rejection any work by signatories of said pledge!  So think twice before signing. 

Here are some reasons:

* Many people claim Elsevier bundles unneeded journals in order to charge outrageous prices for necessary journals.  This is not the case.  Indeed it's a bit early to mention this, but we may be deep in negotiations to add the Journal of Universal Rejection to every bundle offered by Elsevier.  That would be neato.

* Some claim Elsevier's prices are too high.  Well, as an Elsevier spokesperson said, they did raise prices too much in the '80s.  But she sounded really regretful.  So I'm going to assume the prices'll come down.  More importantly, if you calculated the price per article accessed, Elsevier's ratio comes out much(!) lower than JofUR's!  What, are people going to boycott us next?  Where does it end?

* A few claim "open access" journals are the way to go.  Well, nope. Where would we be if JofUR were open access?  No one at all would subscribe!

* True, Elsevier supports SOPA/PIPA.  Well, this is a bit harder, given that JofUR came out against SOPA.  But we didn't menion that we do support PIPA.  It's a very nuanced position.

* Finally, as one about to enter the job market, I don't want to anger any potential employer.   As they say, don't hand feed bits of oat to a horse that won't drink the water that you've led it to, though it can only cross once, never being the same river twice bitten once shy.







Thursday, January 26, 2012

Reality Therapy

Dear M       ,

Thank you for your submission to the Journal of Universal Rejection.  We appreciate that you did not send the paper, and opted instead for a bullet-pointed list.  (In the future, please attached bullet-pointed lists as PowerPoint documents.)

Your list began with the claim that "reality therapy is pretty frickin' sweet."  This led us to the thankfully-unblacked-out Wikipedia to read the first paragraph of the article about reality therapy.

Your submission has completely changed the life of this editor.  When I read that reality therapy does not try to delve into a patient's past, but rather to focus on positive changes for the future, it reverberated to the depths of my sole (yes, I did mean to spell it that way).  Could this therapy be applied to me?  Don't I often hold on to past wrongs, and poison all future endeavors?  Reading that paragraph, I vowed to change for the better.  My wife hasn't gotten home from work yet, but when she does, I'm sure she'll be overjoyed to hear that I forgive her for throwing the toilet-paper tube into the trashbin instead of recycling it.  And that she is off the hook for saying I put too much salt into last night's dinner.  And I forgive my son for when he was eight months old and he bit me!  Ah the release!  Also my brother will be happy to hear that the vacuum-cleaner shark incident is forgotten.

Now to focus on the future.  Yes, I would finally get that hair cut that has been in the offing for months.  (Well, hm, maybe.... at least I'm going to clip my toenails.)  And do laundry!  I have big plans.

With all this heady change, I applied reality theory faster, further.  Even unto the Journal of Universal Rejection.  Was our title too mired in past resentment.  Did all the papers we've rejected weigh on us, like... like... like... something really heavy that weighs on us?  Could 'rejection' itself be considered negative?  Shall we change our name?  Let's see, we're supposed to focus on what we really want.  And what we want is not 'rejection.' 

And then the answer struck us:  We only use rejection as a tool to garner prestige!  Maybe we can rename the journal the Journal of Prestigious Prestigiousness!  Or the Super Bestest Journal in the World.  Super Bestest in the Universe!  Universal Journal of Awesomeness!!

But then we thought, nah.

Your submission is rejected.

Best regards,
Caleb

--
Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

... 87, 88, 89, ...


Dear Tilemahos,

Thank you for submitting your research paper to the Journal of Universal Rejection.  A casual glance informs me it is written in Greek.  I can't read Greek, but I enjoyed flipping through your manuscript and watching the numbers in the upper right hand corner of each page increase.  At first these numbers seemed to be jumping by 10's or 20's, but once I calmed down and proceeded in an orderly fashion more befitting an associate editor of the world's most prestigious journal, it became clear that the numbers incremented by the customary step size of one.  

After this initial in-depth review of your paper, I walked to a coffee shop to purchase and consume a fine beverage (which was even more delightful than usual since I drank it in a Journal of Universal Rejection Ceramic Travel Mug!).  I took your paper along with me in order to give it a quick second look.  On the way to the shop I walked past several young men with sequences of three Greek letters emblazoned on their clothing and headwear.  Surely, they must be experts in the Greek language!  Excitedly, I showed them your manuscript in order to form a better understanding of its intellectual merit.  Strangely, the conversation went something like this:

Me:  "Excuse me, gentleman.  Would you please take a moment to peruse this paper and give me your opinions of it?"

They:  "Dude."

Me:  "I know it's somewhat lengthy, but you would be providing a valuable service to the scholarly world."

They:  "Like, duuuuude."

Me:  "I take it that you are uninterested in reviewing this?"

They:  "LOL!  R U nuts?"

Then they walked away, laughing. 

So, I must base my decision on your manuscript without the benefit of input from additional reviewers.  It is a nice paper, with the page numbers increasing in an orderly and efficient manner.  Unfortunately, this is not enough to meet our high standards and expectations.  I must reject your paper.  

Sincerely,

Eric Chicken
Associate Editor
The Journal of Universal Rejection

Monday, January 23, 2012

Five JofUR Essay Topics

1) Compare and contrast JofUR and /dev/null.



2) Compare and contrast JofUR and an Orwellian memory hole.



3) What I love most about JofUR.



4) If JofUR were a foodstuff, what foodstuff would it be?



5) Name five causes of the War of 1812.

Friday, January 20, 2012

ExtraTerrestrial Begs and Threatens

Dear Citizen Moshanthingliodorlu Dazkoranmar:

I always appreciate a cover letter that begins with begging. It warms my heart and makes me beneficently inclined toward the submitted work, nearly as much as does your subsequent threats to my entire race pending our rejection.

Though I must say that I'm not at all sure that changing the water on Earth to blueberry juice would be such a bad idea. Was that threat or bribe?

Yes, Citizen of Planet DARMANC-917, Galaxy 509B, Quadrant II, Ward 181 (Street 53, Unit 419), nothing could please us here at the Journal more than to acknowledge you as our first alien author submission. Such a thrill would no doubt overshadow even the long-anticipated bonuses promised us by our esteemed corporate overlords.

Alas.

If I had a dollar for every alien we have rejected here at the Journal, I would have that bonus and then some. If I even had two bits for each of the legions of aliens who have sent us stories--works as remarkable as yours, I might add--who have begged and threatened to gain acceptance, why, I would have enough cash for a decent meal. Or a Starbucks latte.

Now to your submitted story. It certainly is a story, and we perceive the alienness of it peering around the words. But, to be blunt, it is a classic trope about world destruction at the hands of an all-powerful AI, and it has--oh my yes--been done before.

As an alien, of course, you wouldn't know this. I recommend to you the science fiction libraries of any number of fans who I am confident would be delighted to host your alien self for as long as it takes to devour their collection. (I mean that metaphorically; look it up.) Perhaps this will give you the necessary perspective for your next story.

Thank you for your submission.

We look forward to the blueberry juice.

--
Sonia Lyris, ExtraTerrestrial Editor
j.universal.rejection.lyris@gmail.com
Journal of Universal Rejection

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Palindrome Em Or Dni Lap

Dear James,

Thank you for submitting your article "Can an Algorithm for Palindrome Reversal be Written in O(log n) Time?" to the Journal of Universal Rejection.

I attempted to do a preliminary review of your article yesterday.  But when you defined a 'palindrome,' you cited Wikipedia.  I could not check on that, since it was SOPA Blackout Wednesday.  So I just gave up.

Today, however, I drank a Redbull, and came at the problem of looking at your paper with renewed energy.  All was going well for your paper until I got to your algorithm for palindrome reversal.  Although I believe your abstract that polynomials can "Probably" be reversed in O(log n) time, I regret to inform you that the algorithm you provided:
  For(i=0; i < n; i++)
       do nothing;
runs in O(n) time! 


I propose that you used a probablistic algorithm which randomly picks letter positions between 1 and floor(n/2), then switches the letter in that position with its conterpart iff the neighboring letters satisfy the Birch-Swingertown-Dying condition.

If you attempt this, we will take another look at your paper.

For now, it is rejected.

Best regards,
Caleb

p.s.  We'll review your other submission sometime.  Yeah.

Monday, January 16, 2012

The Contents of Our Stocking

RE: Your empty submission of 12/25/2011

Dear Michael,

What, were we bad at the Journal of Universal Rejection this year?  No Christmas present?  Even Santa gave us something this year--though granted, its chemical structure looked like this:
image by Karol007; Wikimedia Commons

We cannot accept your piece.  Had you submitted on Michaelmas, perhaps you'd've had mas suerte (pero probablemente no.)

Happy New Year,
Caleb

--
Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection
Twitter: @JUnivRejection

Friday, January 13, 2012

JofUR Rejects SOPA: Press Release

Contact: Caleb Emmons        FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Email: j.universal.rejection@gmail.com
Twitter: @JUnivRejection

THE JOURNAL OF UNIVERSAL REJECTION REJECTS STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT
SOPA Would Be Bad for Business


The Journal of Universal Rejection officially declares its opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  We vow to not publish another issue online until the bill is defeated.

According to the Founder and Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Caleb Emmons, "If my--admittedly shaky--understanding of the bill is correct, it would force several of my favorite websides (napster.com, myspace.com, and huffingtonpost.com) to become de facto journals of universal rejection.  Frankly we can't stand that kind of competition in the rejection business.  At least not until we have more Twitter followers."

The Journal plans to join other prominent websites (Reddit.com, the Cheezburger Network, Wikipedia?) in the Internet blackout on Wednesday, January 18th, 2012.  "Our initial thought was to not participate.  We hoped to pick up some web traffic that would no longer be going to those other sites.  But our consciences spoke, and demanded action," said Emmons.  "Our second thought was to replace our website http://www.universalrejection.org with a single image of a giant thumb poking downward into a sopapilla," continued Emmons.  However, in the end, we were afraid that our cyber-thumb would be burned by hot cooking oil, so have decided to position the thumb hovering dangerously close to, but not penetratingm, the sopapilla.

It is also quite likely that we won't post anything to our blog http://reprobatiocerta.blogspot.com on January 18th, 2012.  Sometimes we like to take Wednesdays off.

Ultimately, the U.S. government--or any government for that matter--should not be in the business of shutting down the dissemination of peoples writing, art work, films, and so forth.  Let us reserve that niche for specialized Journals such as the Journal of Universal Rejection.

# # #

If you'd like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Caleb Emmons, please email j.universal.rejection@gmail.com and follow @JUnivRejection on Twitter

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Untitled.odt


Dear SP,

Thank you for submitting "untitled.odt" to the Journal of Universal Rejection.  You are the 24th person to submit an empty document to the Journal of Universal Rejection.

I must congratulate you on two levels.

Firstly, because you are the first person to submit an empty Open Office document.  I take that your aim is to provide a biting social commentary on the state of Word processing today.  Your aim, by submitting to us, is drive a sudden wedge into the monopolistic control of Microsoft Corp.  Like the toenail of a penguin that slabs an enormous iceberg off of the Ross Ice Shelf, your submission is the final claw, and like that same icerberg, once afloat, 90% of its meaning is underwater!  I predict that within a few days of the publication of this rejection letter, it will no longer be necessary for every single job applicant to waste space on a resume writing "Microsoft Office"

Secondly, by naming your document "Untitled," you follow in the footsteps of such great artists as Jean-Michel Basquiat, Mark Rothko, Emily Dickinson, Charles Simic, ... The list goes on and on.  A bit of their greatness has rubbed off on your work, which glows with a warm amber aura.

We do reject all submissions, empty or not.  Therefore--despite the social commentary and glowing halo--yours is rejected. 

And trust me, the emptiness we publish is our own, not yours.

Best regards,
Caleb

--
Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The 10-minute Play

Dear Michael Maiello,

Thank you for submitting your play "Titus of the Bank" to the Journal of Universal Rejection.

Unfortunately I must let you know that we can neither publish, nor enact, your play.  Moreover, we must discourage you from writing, or sending, any more 10-minute plays.  The reason for this is twofold.

Firstly, what is up with a 10-minute play?  Think about your consumer--the theater-goer.  Must I call a hotline to order overpriced tickets, find a babysitter, take a shower, iron my shirt, comb my hair, find my cuff-links, relearn how to tie a tie, polish my shoes, drive downtown, find parking, stand in line in the cold, have a hassle when they can't find my tickets, get seated in the drafty part of the theater where there is also no view of the stage, and then to find out that the play IS ONLY TEN MINUTES LONG???

So you can see, we are not particularly inclined toward 10-minute plays in general.  But let us move on.  I have taken a look at your play.  It seemed to only have three characters.  But I guess that is forgivable, given its length (or shortness).  But did you know that the characters "Titus," "Saturninus," and "Tamora" have already appeared in a perfectly good play by a certain Francis Bacon--or was it Christopher Marlowe?  In any case, it's been done before, and though I didn't really read your play, I'm sure the old one was much better.  And perhaps worth all the travail.

Thanks for your time.  Maybe if you add some more to the play, and get some new characters, we will take a second look at it.

Best regards,
Caleb

 --
Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Twitter Twitter Twitter

[Begin important announcement]  The Journal of Universal Rejection can now tweet.  We have yet to do so, but we can.
Yay! [End important announcement]

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Andre the Giant and Mentos

Dear Prof. L             ,

In your paper you write:

"Many caveats apply to our conclusion, which is likely to be false."

This was a breath of fresh air in the musty halls of academia.  Nay, more than a breath, it was as if Andre the Giant ate an entire package of Mentos™, inhaled huge lungfuls of sulfur hexafluoride, and then blew a ginormous blast into said halls.  

Because your paper was so insightful, we have decided not to publish it in the Journal of Universal Rejection.  Here is what would happen if we did:

(1) Your paper would shoot to the top of our most-read list
(2) Your paper would be read by everyone-who's-anyone in academia
(3) You would be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences
(4) Like sand through the hourglass, prestigious job-offers would pour in

And that's just the beginning.  Clearly you could never extricate yourself from academia's musty halls at that point.  The must must overwhelm you--or the mustiness must, mustn't it?  Like one overcome by mustard gas, you would be rendered incapable of escape.

But you deserve to live free.  Publish or perish?  We say live rejected or die!  Perish before it's too late.  Take your insights and head to Wall Street!

Best regards,
Caleb

--
Caleb Emmons, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Universal Rejection