Replies

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.

Thank you for the additional explanation!

If my idea came to fruition I would not expect the publisher to be the same as the one who rejected the article. It would need a separate publisher who specializes in fringe science, where the contributors may actually need to contribute to the cost of publication to augment advertisement income.

In this context, I'm confident an author would be circumspect before submitting his manuscript – because there is no prestige in been so published.