One was rejected simply because that journal had too large a backlog to handle new submissions. One journal didn't like the authors title and published it after the author agreed to change the title. There are a couple of cases where a journal said the topic wasn't really relevant to their journal, and the work then went on to get published in more relevant journal. In one case they said we like your work and think you're on to something, but your conclusion is too strongly worded given the data you presented.
In no case did the journal or reviewer state that they thought the paper or research was straight up wrong.
If I'm just one peripheral person on a long list I might read quickly through and say "Looks fine to me." But if I'm really reviewing something, I almost feel that I'm expected to at least find some nit-picks--as well as anything really substantial of course. It's pretty rare that I will be "No comments" on a first-pass review.
This is something you see all the time. Someone does a limited experiment, gets the result they where hoping for, and then get super excited and carried away and claim that their entire thesis has been proven true. I've rejected (or rather sent back for extensive revision) papers myself based on this, even when my gut feeling was that their conclusion was probably correct. Often the paper comes back with a more moderated conclusion and then gets published without a problem.
Minor modifications shouldn't require a new full review cycle, maybe just the editor takes a look, or just some quick check with reviewer to see if they accept the change.
Rejecting pending resubmission is for larger changes which require a more thorough review, but the journal is still interested in publishing the paper. This might be a section that requires more explanation, for example more details on how samples were controlled for other factors.
Also as mentioned a full rejection doesn't automatically mean the paper is rubbish, it could just be the journal doesn't consider it a good fit or similar. It's not uncommon for a paper to go through multiple rejections before getting published.
At least that's my understanding based on a close friend who publishes papers, feel free to correct me.
reviewers exist to find the dumb, obvious errors in papers that should prevent publication so as to not waste too much of other's people's time.
Peer review is only broken if you expect it to be something it isnt.
Humans have no known way of producing quasicrystals in bulk, but amazingly we have found that meteorites (e.g. the Khatyrka) can have them. Something about traveling through deep space for millions of years...
Quasicrystals can be modeled as crystals in the N+1’th dimension.
Princeton mathematicians recently simulated a 1D crystal where the location of the atoms on the 1D grid was set to the first few tens of millions of prime numbers. The resulting diffraction pattern was quasi-crystalline...
Suggest that the link point to the original source.
Later, two Chinese physicist went on to get the Nobel Prize for that same theory. Pauli later apologised.
- How many accepted papers did win the Nobel Prize?
- How many rejected papers did not win the Nobel prize?
- How many rejected papers are utter batshit nonsense?
Edit: had forgotten about submission fees. Yes, those were real. $100 was a lot more then, particularly for a grad student. Competion from open-access journals has been so good that people are forgetting how terrible it was. But paywall journals are still very, very bad. IMO it is irresponsible to use one.
Also it's the technology driving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Leaving out 'nuclear' was just a marketing tactic to keep people from being afraid.
I got to do an NMR experiment as an undergrad, a decade before MRI, and it seemed miraculous then. I remember reading a speculation that a 3D imaging machine ought to be possible (in IEEE Spectrum, back when it was often ground-breaking), and was astounded when five years later they had done it and were selling them. Still haven't had a scan, yet.
Did I mention it was a 23T superconducting supercooled magnet, where you inject charge (electrons) and they swirl around without neglible resistance for months at a time?
Don't know what about 'needing a big magnet' precludes this being a valid physics paper.
If a scientific paper that contains rubbish never gets accepted, the criteria for acceptance is too strict.
There is plenty wrong with the "scientific publication" process as it is firmly rooted in the 19th-century mentality, but submission fees are not among the problems.