Hi Ecolog, My colleagues and I are brainstorming on why papers get rejected and what should happen to them. There seems to be this common view in our discipline that only the 'best' work should be published to advance research. This would be great but every paper/journal/study can't be the best; so what about studies that fail to support a major hypothesis or are confirmatory in nature or are preliminary? Surely, these must also advance science. If you recently recommended rejection of a paper, consider taking a second and answer these quick questions as a thought experiment on the topic.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rejected-ecology We are considering these issues due to the research works act, the land of misfit toys, and alternative ways we might communicate our research (perhaps not as replacements but alternatives/supplements to regular journals) - provided we agree that rejected papers still need a home and that perhaps it is time to experiment with other journal models for ecology. cheers, chris lortie.
