In response to criticism of the peer review publication process, a study surveyed a random sample of 600 members of the American Psychological Association (APA) to determine (1) whether professional openness exists regarding the publication of a journal highlighting studies that, due to a difficulty in the experimental procedure, would usually be rejected for publication even though they have important contributions to make; and (2) whether psychology as a profession feels that such a journal would be of value. Responses from 128 members indicated that respondents were cautious concerning a willingness to subscribe to the proposed journal and were not significantly willing to submit research to it; however, they were far more open about their willingness to read the journal. Respondents who said they would submit to, subscribe to, and/or read the proposed journal gave higher ratings than those classified as nonsubmitters, nonsubscribers, and nonreadesrs to the following four journal functions (out of the seven addressed in the survey); partial contributions, inconsistent rejection reasons, "serendipity", and education. Subscribers gave lower ratings than nonsubscribers to the "warning" and "solution" functions. Readers rated these functions and the seventh function, "humor," higher than did nonreaders. Willingness to subscribe to the journal was found to be the most stringent criterion. Results supported the conjecture that numerous APA members feel that they are being prevented from getting research studies published, generally support the notion that a need exists for a novel approach to publishing within the profession, and appreciate the role that serendipity, or chance, has to play in the advancement of scientific information. References and tables are appended. (JD)