New Now accepting submissions

Rejected for disagreeing with the consensus?
Send it here.

The Natural Philosophy Journal is a new peer-reviewed journal for serious work that criticizes mainstream science, the kind of work established journals turn away without a fair hearing. Published quarterly, online and in print.

Submit a paper Become a reviewer

Why this journal exists

There is serious scientific work being done that cannot get into established journals for one reason: it criticizes mainstream science. Papers that question relativity, Big Bang cosmology or the standard interpretations of quantum theory are routinely rejected, often without review, for disagreeing with the consensus rather than for any fault in their reasoning.

For decades this community's research has lived in conference proceedings, personal websites and the Natural Philosophy Wiki. Those are valuable archives, but they are not a journal. This journal gives the work genuine peer review and a permanent, citable, dated record that libraries and search engines can find.

Reviewers judge whether the argument is sound and the evidence sufficient, not whether they agree with the conclusion.

Call for authors

If you are doing serious work outside the mainstream, we want to read it: the paper that was turned away elsewhere, or the one you never sent because you knew it would be.

  • Fair, anonymous peer review
  • No fees to publish, and you keep your copyright
  • A free LaTeX template, or we format your paper for you at $10 per page
  • Accepted authors can present their work on our YouTube channel

Submit a paper Author template

Call for reviewers

We are building our reviewer pool in physics, cosmology, engineering, the earth sciences and the philosophy of science. We need people who will judge whether a paper's argument holds up, whether or not they agree with its conclusion.

  • Register and tick “willing to review”
  • Review only in your own areas of expertise
  • Optionally be listed on our public Reviewers page

Volunteer to review Our reviewers

A special plea

Are you a teacher or professor?

We especially need you. Teachers and professors bring the training, the teaching experience and the academic standing that make peer review count. If you have ever doubted part of the accepted story in your field, or simply believe that dissenting work deserves a fair reading, please help us. You can review papers in your own subject, help as an editor, or tell colleagues and students that this journal exists. Even a few reviews a year make a real difference.

Volunteer to review Write to the editors

How it works

  1. 1PrepareWrite your paper with the journal's free LaTeX template.
  2. 2SubmitRegister and upload the anonymous review PDF.
  3. 3ReviewIndependent reviewers judge the argument and the evidence.
  4. 4PublishOpen access, with a permanent, citable record.

Sections

Our subject boundaries were drawn from what this community actually writes: nearly 5,000 papers catalogued in the Natural Philosophy Wiki.

  • Relativity and GravitationRelativity, gravitation, inertia and the nature of time.
  • Aether and Unified Field TheoryAether models, vortex and structural theories of matter.
  • Cosmology and AstrophysicsRedshift, large-scale structure, alternatives to the Big Bang.
  • Electrodynamics, Light and OpticsExtended electrodynamics; the nature and propagation of light.
  • Quantum, Atomic and Nuclear PhysicsFoundations of quantum theory; atomic and nuclear structure.
  • Plasma and the Electric UniverseElectrical models of astrophysical phenomena; plasma cosmology.
  • Energy, Propulsion and ApplicationsNovel energy conversion, LENR, propulsion. Strictest evidence bar.
  • Earth and Planetary ScienceExpansion tectonics and catastrophism, reviewed by geologists.
  • Philosophy and Foundations of ScienceMethodology, theory choice, the logic of scientific evidence.
  • Commentary and Historical NotesNot peer reviewed. Biography, history, reviews, correspondence.

What we ask of authors

We are open to work that challenges consensus. That is the point of this journal. But being unorthodox is not the same as being unaccountable. Submissions should state their claims clearly, show their derivations, report measurement uncertainty where measurements are involved, and engage honestly with the evidence against them. Papers making experimental claims must describe a route by which an independent group could check the result.