Replies

Thank you so much for your post!

One suggestion comes to mind, that there be a publication for rejected articles upon the author's approval - giving the article as written and the letter(s) of rejection and being made available to the general public.

That could be done. But most rejections are for things such as grammar (I'm going to reject an article for continual subject-verb disagreements which confuse the actual point being made.) or just for certain nutty statements such as "All continuous functions are differentiable" which keep showing up.

Mostly the authors just go for peer review for corrections (although I still have a paper to re-write because my proofs aren't strong enough.) but some are just crazy. We still get things like "squaring the circle" proofs and "pi=3" proofs.

The publishers are not in the business of dissemination of wrong results. The readers also expect a publisher to have good peer review. Some journals just have better reputations than others in this matter.

Publishing is costly as is science in general. An author can always self-publish. No author is owed publishing, partly for economic reasons and partly because being published lends some of the journal's prestige to the author.