In publishing, the quality of an academic journal is often gauged by how exclusive it is. Thus the higher the rejection rate of that journal (meaning, the more submitted papers it snootily declines to publish as falling below its lofty standards), the better of a journal it must be. It thusly follows that the finest journal in the world is the Journal of Universal Rejection, which rejects every single paper submitted to it, and so, is never actually able to put out an issue. If an author submits a piece to the Journal of Universal Rejection, their editors will happily review at and reject it straight off.

Wired magazine offers more details of the benefits of submitting to this journal, including the fact that they don't care whether you've simultaneously submitted your work elsewhere, and their return rate is blindingly fast compared to the typical months-long slog for such publication efforts. The one lacking element in this scheme is a rating on the reviewer's quality scale, which one would imagine would go from "absolutely unpublishable garbage" to "just barely below our standards," for which the latter sort of rating would be quite a feather in the author's cap indeed!!

Incidentally, the counterpoint to the Journal of Universal Rejection, on a Cosmic scale, is.... Everything2 -- which has a freakin' button marked "Publish."