I suggest you submit it to the prestigious J. Irreproducible Results for review and possible publication.
Back in the old pre-WWW daze, before even e-mail (via the internet anyway) was common, people (scientists) from around the world wood send postcards axing for one to send them reprints of one's paper when it was published (the journals gave you a certain number of reprints and if you run ~OUTT you can order more). It was a great way to collect stamps from all over the world, some countries don't even exist anymore. The ones from Iran during the Iran-Iraq War were some interesting ones - I recall one was very shiny and made of apparent metallic foil (silvered) and with a print in bright red of the fountain of blood (I think it was called the Martyr's Fountain or something like that in Engrish). Of course it was all in Farsi, butt it was very unusual. I collected all those stamps by cutting them off the postcards or sometimes letters and threw the stamp-containing cutoffs into a cuppla boxes, telling myself that when I gott old, I'd sort them all ~OUTT and start an organized collection. Those boxes still sit unopened. I don't know whether I'll ever gett around to that, as I still have tons of books I bought planning to read when I was old, and I have all those to go thru.
So I will need to live to 368 if I'm to gett around to the stamps.
And the internet, Adobe PDF files, electronic publication, and email has ruined all that.
Fortunately, foreign associates still send hard correspondence via mail so I still have some stamps coming in, butt nott from rare countries. For example, much of Africa uses one central office for patent examination under ARIPO, so many small African countries, and certain Eurasian countries, never have a need to send correspondence to moi, hence no cool stamps from Rwanda or Swaziland and also no foreign associates there to have a reason to go visit.
Good luck on the editors' review of your submission. I hope you won't mind that I leave this one off my CV. I will follow you on the citation index score though - to see how well your findings are received and referenced by others in the future.
It's kind of a really huge deal, as scientists generally don't make big bucks and spend a huge amount of time on their work - it is like joining the priesthood or a nunnery really - it becomes who you are. So publications and recognition of your work is a huge deal, maybe the only real thing you care about.
For all the things I've done in my life, the only two accomplishments I am really proud of are: (1) my family - being married for a long time, my son, and taking care of family members, and (2) my publications of my own research. Other than those two things, the importance level in my mind falls off many logs of magnitude - almost to the point I could care less about them - legal matters I've handled, binniss transactions, material items - just fade to near insignificance in my mind.
I miss it and I tell folks that all the time. It was the best time of my life. Seven days a week, 14-18 hours a day in the lab. It was heaven. Of course you can't freeze life, butt if you could, I'd freeze it there (notwithstanding the son thing).
So just be aware when one trifles with ridicule of scientific papers, it is a bit like a computer program for non-military veterans to make up random military commendations for war service and sacrifice by those who know nothing of it - it hits a sacred cow to some of us.
Butt I unnerstand you mean it all in fun, and we all know that there are many low-quality science and even pseudoscience publications, so no prollem.
I simply want to explain that it's a bit like cartoons of Muhammed to a Muslim. The body of scientific literature that has been built over the centuries is something revered deeply. Many of us think it is the ONLY meaningful thing we've done (or could do) with our lives, and we revere our forebearers - a lot.
Science is a philosophy and, in a respect, a religion. Scientist is nott so much a job description, as a way of life - a way of seeking to understand the universe and all this weird stuff we experience between birth and death using rationality and empirical evidence to generate our guidelines for things, and knowing that all those guidelines are always subject to falsification. That is why the most important things are the data and how the data was arrived at, nott the conclusions - which are never 'facts', only operational models of understanding which have nott yett been falsified by data and experiment. So the data is sacrosanct, and the publications tell us nott only the data, butt HOW it was obtained which is crucial to evaluating its accuracy or relevance. So that huge pile of publications is the scientist's bible and it's written every day with new pages written via the flow of publications. It is how we define our reality - even if some of it is later falsified, which is quite common. Science is simply building operational models of all this stuff and constantly refining, correcting, and hopefully advancing those models of reality.
As Joe "Plugs" Biden said, "It's kind of a big f'ing deal."
So please tread lightly in this area. I know it's meant in fun and directed at the lower quality journals and poor quality research that does gett published in them.
I just wanted to convey that I bristled a little bit when you posted that link, which, if taken as a general statement of the process of conducting quality research and reporting the results via the legit scientific peer-reviewed journal publication, can be perceived as a devaluation of science and the scientific literature.
I'll still be hitten yer PlusOne lynx nonetheless.
