Advice on submitting a scientific paper

[Farsight]

DH/Swanson/Severian: thanks for the advice.

[lucaspa]

Thanks for the information guys. All points noted.

 

 

 

tree: I tried arial and helvetica plus univers, including narrow/condensed versions, and none look particularly satisfactory either on-screen or as hard-copy. I've currently gone back to Times New Roman 11-point justified, the general appearance is something like this one plucked at random:

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3248v1.pdf

 

Any particular advice you can offer would be most welcome.

 

The Tree was pulling your leg. ALL my papers were submitted in Times New Roman. Every paper I have ever reviewed has had the text in Times New Roman. 12 point is better than 11 point, but never go below 11 point. Some people justify both sides, but I prefer just left justification.

[PhDP]

lucaspa,

 

It's probably because you're working in a science with little mathematics.

 

In physics, mathematics and theoretical biology, many (if not most) articles are written in LaTeX (font; Computer modern). Even in biology, TeX files are generally accepted. I never saw a TeX document with Times New Roman.

[ajb]

I hope to get something published soon, even if it is just on the arxiv.

 

I have some interesting results in symplectic geometry, I'll post on here when I am ready to go "public",lol.

[Farsight]

Here's the "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+ on a publicly-available website:

 

http://www.relativityplus.info/

 

Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", more commonly known as a "toy model". It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything". Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. But I hope there's at least some good value that advances the cause we're all rooting for.

[ajb]

I had a quick browse at the "paper" and it does not look like any scientific paper I have read. Little mathematics means I doubt how scientific such a paper can be.

 

I think the idea that a "qualitative model" (a model with no maths?) is a "toy model" is wrong. A toy model is still a mathematical model, just one that is simplified to the extent that it cannot describe nature but does have features that a more realistic model would have. Such things are used all the time to get a deeper understanding of the "workings" of nature.

 

Also I would like to question your acknowledgements. You list some very well-known physicists, have you actually spoken directly to them? Including them in acknowledgements as you have, could be seen as an endorsement from them. Listing them as references is fine and you should do that. I would reserve acknowledgements for people who "actually" helped you.

 

Not sure I agree with all your conclusions, but I have not read all the paper so I can't really comment as you may be saying something ok just unconventional.

[Farsight]

All points noted, ajb. I put "scientific paper" in quotes in my earlier post because I'm conscious that the lack of mathematics is an issue. I rather thought "toy" was being honest, but I take your point. I've spoken with some of the people in my acknowledgements, but not all. Thanks for the feedback.

 

Any feedback anybody can offer will be gratefully received.

[Mr Skeptic]

Include a table of contents.

 

Also a brief list/summary. I would recommend a brief but specific list of all "new" claims you make. Be as brief as you can without being vague.

 

Good Example:

*The charge e is a twist of [quantity] degrees in spacetime along the [insert axis] axis.

 

Bad Examples:

*Charge is twist.

*blah blah blah

 

Most people here don't have enough faith in you to read 40 pages of stuff, most of which seems like non-congruent analogies. Also, be humble instead of arrogant.

 

You don't need mathematics if you are exact enough. If you are vague, no quantity of mathematics will save you anyhow. Reason people ask for the math is because it is hard to be vague in math and easy to spot mistakes.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa,

 

It's probably because you're working in a science with little mathematics.

 

In physics, mathematics and theoretical biology, many (if not most) articles are written in LaTeX (font; Computer modern). Even in biology, TeX files are generally accepted. I never saw a TeX document with Times New Roman.

 

I've done papers in physical chemistry and theoretical biology where equations were used. We submitted in Times New Roman. I don't think I've seen a font requirement in biology, just a size requirement. So I suppose you could submit in any font if you wished. What the journal will typeset the paper into later is, of course, up to them.

 

Here's the "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+ on a publicly-available website:

 

http://www.relativityplus.info/

 

Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", more commonly known as a "toy model". It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything". Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. But I hope there's at least some good value that advances the cause we're all rooting for.

 

I could be specific in review, but that would mean we would be doing the peer-reviewing here. Convincing us is not your goal; you want to convince the physics community. So send it in and see what happens. The only thing I would say is that a "qualitative model" needs to produce some results that other models do not. Othwerwise, what good is it? For any specific set of data points, there are a near infinite number of theories that can be constructed to explain the data. The only way you can tell whether one theory is accurate is that if it predicts data the other theories don't. I didn't see that in my browse of your paper. Perhaps I missed it.

 

I did note that your yttrium barium copper oxide on page 16 should be YBaCuO, not the "YBCO" that you had. You have yttrium boron carbon oxide.

[D H]

So I suppose you could submit in any font if you wished. What the journal will typeset the paper into later is, of course, up to them.

Exactly. How pretty you make the paper look doesn't count. It is the content that matters.

[Farsight]

I could be specific in review, but that would mean we would be doing the peer-reviewing here. Convincing us is not your goal; you want to convince the physics community. So send it in and see what happens. The only thing I would say is that a "qualitative model" needs to produce some results that other models do not. Othwerwise, what good is it?

 

I would actively like a specific review. I can't lodge it on arxiv because I have no endorsement. And if I can't convince a bunch of guys on a physics forum, what chance do I have of convincing the physics community? Regarding what good it is, it offers a coherent set of concepts that give an intuitive understand of how the world works. That has to be worth something.

 

For any specific set of data points, there are a near infinite number of theories that can be constructed to explain the data. The only way you can tell whether one theory is accurate is that if it predicts data the other theories don't. I didn't see that in my browse of your paper. Perhaps I missed it.

There's a lot in here. I would urge you to print it, and sit down and read it thoroughly.

 

I did note that your yttrium barium copper oxide on page 16 should be YBaCuO, not the "YBCO" that you had. You have yttrium boron carbon oxide.

No. It's YBCO. That's its name. I give the chemical formula on page 16. It's YBa2Cu3O7. Check on google:

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ybco+superconductor

[Klaynos]

But our past experiance shows that intuitive ideas about how the universe works are so often wrong

[Farsight]

But not always. If we really believed your line of reasoning we might as well pack up, give up, and go home. Please log on to my little website, click on the hyperlink at the bottom of the page to call up the pdf document, print the paper, sit down, and read it thoroughly. Then judge it. Please don't judge it before you've read it. I'd then be grateful if you could get back to me pointing out any particular errors or omissions. I'm sure there will be some, but at the same time I'm sure that there is some value there. Do you know anybody else who can offer you a plausible explanation of the fine structure constant? Or what Planck's constant really is? Or what a neutrino is? Or why we see flat galactic rotation curves and why the universe is flat?

[ydoaPs]

Regarding what good it is, it offers a coherent set of concepts that give an intuitive understand of how the world works. That has to be worth something.

It is still too vague to tell if it is even coherent. For example, one possible prediction that can fall out of your speculations is that there is a minimum mass requirement for each value of charge. It depends on how you define certain things you left blurry. And just thinking about the needed maths, it looks like your speculations(how I understand it) necessitate a link between charge and gravity. Until you make it less vague, there is no way to know if it truly is coherent.

 

But our past experiance shows that intuitive ideas about how the universe works are so often wrong

Which is exactly why he needs to present the needed maths. With the maths, one can actually compare solutions of the equations to those of the current theories and even with experimental data to test the accuracy.

[miosim]

If you honestly think physics has reached an impasse and that rigorous mathematical approach cannot provide the answers, then you understand less than I thought you did.

 

 

The math is formalized logic. Logic is valid only in the well defined area of knowlege/experiece.

As long as we "honestly think" that advances in understanding of physical reality are based on the rigorous mathematical approach the progress in physics is doomed for impasse.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2012 by miosim