scientific papers

[`hýsøŕ]

i was wondering whether there's some site most scientists use to publish/post and look up research papers, there are several i'd like to have a look at.

also can you post a paper as a student? or do you need to have a degree or some kind of qualification first? (i doubt any papers posted by a student will be useful so i doubt you'd be allowed to post any)

[CharonY]

Papers are generally published in journals (not websites), but they are indexed in various databases and can be accessed via a number of search engines. Google scholar can be used freely to find papers, Web of Science can be accessed via a library. Pubmed is for medical/life science papers and pubmedcentral is an associated repository with free articles.

Then there is arXiv which is an e-print archive more related to physics and mathematics. While students could in theory submit to a journal (you do not just post them), they are generally not of sufficient quality. Considering that an editor has to sift and sort through heaps of papers it would most likely waste someones precious time.

It is highly recommended to go through an advisor first.

[ajb]

i was wondering whether there's some site most scientists use to publish/post and look up research papers, there are several i'd like to have a look at.

There are several data bases, it depends on what you are looking for and what your university has subscribed to. For example we have, web of science and mathscinet. There are others, but it is only the last one that I actually use.

 

Also many journals now have online content, but this varies.

 

Then there is the arXiv where preprints are posted. Not all of these go on to be proper peer-reviewed papers, so a little caution maybe called for. To some extent preprints are work in progress and invite comments and suggestions.

 

 

also can you post a paper as a student? or do you need to have a degree or some kind of qualification first? (i doubt any papers posted by a student will be useful so i doubt you'd be allowed to post any)

For the arXiv you need an endorser, some experienced user that will say that you are genuine.

 

For journals you don't need any degree or other qualification to submit. However, without at least a degree and a lot of help from an experienced researcher it is unlikely that a paper would be of sufficient quality to publish.

[`hýsøŕ]

ah i expected as much xD was asking because i got several like.. tiny theories (more like small ideas or problems) which i have some urge to share but i guess they'd probably be dwarfed by proper research papers, ty

Edited May 13, 2014 by `hýsøŕ

[md65536]

ah i expected as much xD was asking because i got several like.. tiny theories (more like small ideas or problems) which i have some urge to share but i guess they'd probably be dwarfed by proper research papers, ty

If you want to discuss the ideas, you can always post them in the Speculations forum on this site.

 

If the idea is complete and you want to write a paper and make it available, there is an alternative repository called "vixra.org". It is modelled after arXiv but is open to anyone. Because of that, there are some terrible papers (and cargo cult facsimiles) there and submitting there won't gain you any credibility. Likely no one will read your submission, but you could then try to discuss it on forums etc while having the complete idea written up in one spot in a paper.

 

If you know how to express your ideas clearly using correct scientific language, you *might* find some success in either of the two above ways, but that's unlikely because typically those who can get their point across have studied science and had access to advisors who would steer them into the mainstream channels with peer review and away from options like the above. Which way you should go depends on how serious you are and how much work you're willing to put in. But you can always start small, and improve as you learn. Just don't get stuck for years trying to convince people of your ideas without ever learning to express them properly, as a lot of us tend to do with Speculations or vixra.

[`hýsøŕ]

Could do, the speculation place is probably a better place than a journal to post it anyway since my idea is trying to apply physics to something thats not really a physical system. might post it on here when im done with it.

and yeah If i saw a paper which wasn't expressed very well or was very unscientific I'd probably dismiss it too, hopefully my idea fits some definition of being at least a bit scientific xD

 

if you post on that vixra site, is that like 'patenting' your idea? (so that somebody else can't just come and use it for themselves)

[md65536]

if you post on that vixra site, is that like 'patenting' your idea? (so that somebody else can't just come and use it for themselves)

Vixra's just like arxiv but without the reputability requirements.

It's closer to the opposite... you want people to be able to use your work (otherwise the paper's useless). But it does serve as a timestamped record of the work if you ever had to try to prove that someone copied it without credit. It also makes it easier to cite the work, compared to forum postings.

[ajb]

My advice is not to post something on vixra.org. The quality of some of the "papers" just drags everything else down with it. It could hurt your future credibility. What you want to do is get your ideas on par with real science and find someone who will endorse you on the arXiv.

[`hýsøŕ]

oh right, well.. hmm .. perhaps i'll save the idea for when i can safely say im a qualified scientist then post it as a real paper (maybe i'll have scrapped it or improved it by then accordingly anyway)

[ajb]

oh right, well.. hmm .. perhaps i'll save the idea for when i can safely say im a qualified scientist then post it as a real paper (maybe i'll have scrapped it or improved it by then accordingly anyway)

 

You could start a tread in speculations to get some feedback quickly.

[`hýsøŕ]

might do when its all fleshed out and ready for showing, atm its a little vague and i've only just begun making the calculations anyway

[md65536]

My advice is not to post something on vixra.org. The quality of some of the "papers" just drags everything else down with it. It could hurt your future credibility. What you want to do is get your ideas on par with real science and find someone who will endorse you on the arXiv.

Do you know of any case where someone's credibility was harmed by a past posting to vixra, even though the posted paper was of good enough quality to be otherwise worthy of credibility?

 

 

How does one find someone to endorse on arXiv? Assuming the work actually *is* credible, which I'm guessing is the first and the biggest hurdle.

 

I imagine one route is: post in forums; someone recognizes it as potentially useful; endorses or puts the writer in touch with someone qualified to review the paper and who can endorse. Do you have a guess what the chances of success are?

 

Another route is write the paper and directly ask an endorser to read it. I assume this won't work unless you are in a situation where you have an opportunity to talk to someone. (I once chatted with Leonard Susskind for a minute at a conference, and he said something along the lines of "Maybe one day I'll read a paper you wrote," well I didn't take that as a promise and I didn't mention that I'm a crackpot, but I'm sure it was a better opportunity to get someone interested, than say emailing everyone in the physics department with "I have a new theory of the universe! You might become famous if read it.") Because there are so many bad crackpots pushing their theories, real physicists tend not to have the time to be cold-called by amateurs with pet theories, so I think this route is out.

 

Another way is to go the academic route and find an advisor who can increase your exposure as you increase your writing quality while you learn.

[ajb]

Do you know of any case where someone's credibility was harmed by a past posting to vixra, even though the posted paper was of good enough quality to be otherwise worthy of credibility?

I personally don't know anyone who has posted vixra, so I can't say. Those that I do know of that have posted there and have published works were already by that stage considered on the fringes. Because of that and the low quality overall I would not post work there.

 

I will confess that I did consider posting my arXiv preprints on vixra also, but when I looked at the other papers and sort advice from experienced researchers I decided not to.

 

How does one find someone to endorse on arXiv? Assuming the work actually *is* credible, which I'm guessing is the first and the biggest hurdle.

I can only really tell you what I did. I contacted a well established professor and asked him to comment on my work. After that I was able to ask him to endorse my first preprint (which as later published after some reworking). I now work for that professor.

 

I imagine one route is: post in forums; someone recognizes it as potentially useful; endorses or puts the writer in touch with someone qualified to review the paper and who can endorse. Do you have a guess what the chances of success are?

Posting on forums is probably not the way to go. It would be seen as unprofessional and quackish.

 

Another route is write the paper and directly ask an endorser to read it.

This is what you should do and well before the preprint or paper is ready. You should be talking to experts as soon as possible with work. If you don't how can you judge the relevancy and potential importance of a piece of work?

 

 

I assume this won't work unless you are in a situation where you have an opportunity to talk to someone.

Email can be good for that. However, not everyone will respond. Also you should be very careful in writing an email, it needs to be of the right wording to engage in a two way exchange. I forget who told me this but basically "emails from researchers ask questions, while emails from crackpots insist they have the answer".

 

Also, people don't have the time or will to get you up to speed with science via emails. If you make daft claims or clearly don't understand what is already known then few people will be willing to directly help you. It is just not a good use of their time.

 

Another way is to go the academic route and find an advisor who can increase your exposure as you increase your writing quality while you learn.

Which is the best thing to do. Get your degree and PhD.

[md65536]

I can only really tell you what I did. I contacted a well established professor and asked him to comment on my work. After that I was able to ask him to endorse my first preprint (which as later published after some reworking). I now work for that professor.

Were you in grad school at the time or had a degree that was used as credentials?

 

It seems what is important includes:

- You must write clearly with correct scientific language (which includes math).

- You must have a professional attitude (stuff like, as you wrote, "emails from researchers ask questions, while emails from crackpots insist they have the answer").

- You need credentials (a grad degree, or someone who can vouch for you, or build up a body of work that shows that you understand the field).

 

Is that last point important?

 

Posting on forums is probably not the way to go. It would be seen as unprofessional and quackish.

Vixra now allows using a pseudonym, just like these forums do, so it's probably safe to do that without ruining your career. Vixra used to not allow that. I guess they recognize the reality of the stigma. It seems like shaming open submission and making it difficult to post to arxiv is a lot to do with keeping amateurs out. I don't think that amateurs should be discouraged from trying to do science (I think the real problem is people thinking that their quack science should have an equal voice as real science, whether it's their "Einstein was wrong!" paper, or creationism in the classroom).

 

In fact, I'd say that vixra is exactly the appropriate place for amateur science. So I think to combine advice from this thread, OP and the many of us in a similar place should do the following:

 

1. If you're serious about this, consider a proper education.

2. Write up your ideas as best as you can for now. Don't spend ages trying to perfect it before seeking advice on it. Post it to a blog or any document repository if you want a record of your work.

3. Seek advice on the work. Ask people to read it, post to forums, whatever. Don't pester or be arrogant or forceful. The less easy it is for others to get what you're saying, the less success you'll have.

4. Learn from what people say. Learn where the exposition of your ideas needs improvement, where there are problems with the ideas themselves, and also learn the relevant existing science that will affect the ideas. Also learn to recognize bad advice... No matter who you are or what you do you'll get plenty of discouragement. "To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -- Elbert Hubbard

5. If the idea is still good, go back to step 1 and repeat as many times as necessary (until you give up, or get published, or end up working on a degree).

Edited May 17, 2014 by md65536

[ajb]

Were you in grad school at the time or had a degree that was used as credentials?

I was finishing my PhD at the time. I don't recall exactly what I said in my first email, but probably I did that and who my supervisors were.

 

It seems what is important includes:

- You must write clearly with correct scientific language (which includes math).

- You must have a professional attitude (stuff like, as you wrote, "emails from researchers ask questions, while emails from crackpots insist they have the answer").

The above is true.

 

- You need credentials (a grad degree, or someone who can vouch for you, or build up a body of work that shows that you understand the field).

 

Is that last point important?

There is no formal requirement to have a degree or postgrad degree, however the general feeling is that if you are serious and know your stuff then you would have such things. There is a lot of prerequisite knowledge that you need and the best way to get this is via the standard route. But I will say that not having a PhD will not by itself bar you from publication.

 

 

Vixra now allows using a pseudonym, just like these forums do, so it's probably safe to do that without ruining your career. Vixra used to not allow that. I guess they recognize the reality of the stigma.

But you want your name to be recognised, especially when looking for jobs. But this may be less important if you are an amateur.

 

It seems like shaming open submission and making it difficult to post to arxiv is a lot to do with keeping amateurs out. I don't think that amateurs should be discouraged from trying to do science (I think the real problem is people thinking that their quack science should have an equal voice as real science, whether it's their "Einstein was wrong!" paper, or creationism in the classroom).

It is not about keeping amateurs out, and in fact we have not carefully defined amateurs here. It is more to do with trying to keep the material on the arXiv "of publishable quality". Of course not everything on the arXiv is good material, there are plenty of works in progress on there.

 

In fact, I'd say that vixra is exactly the appropriate place for amateur science.

The amount of rubbish and crackpot science on there suggests that it is not a good place.

 

So I think to combine advice from this thread, OP and the many of us in a similar place should do the following:

 

1. If you're serious about this, consider a proper education.

2. Write up your ideas as best as you can for now. Don't spend ages trying to perfect it before seeking advice on it. Post it to a blog or any document repository if you want a record of your work.

3. Seek advice on the work. Ask people to read it, post to forums, whatever. Don't pester or be arrogant or forceful. The less easy it is for others to get what you're saying, the less success you'll have.

4. Learn from what people say. Learn where the exposition of your ideas needs improvement, where there are problems with the ideas themselves, and also learn the relevant existing science that will affect the ideas. Also learn to recognize bad advice... No matter who you are or what you do you'll get plenty of discouragement. "To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -- Elbert Hubbard

5. If the idea is still good, go back to step 1 and repeat as many times as necessary (until you give up, or get published, or end up working on a degree).

Good advice.

[`hýsøŕ]

i am in a proper education at the moment, this is merely a side thing i was thinking about for interests sake. and it's so handwavy right now i would consider it psuedoscience myself, maybe someday i can perfect the idea and turn it into a legitimate hypothesis to be tested. nothing too serious anyway, but thanks for the advice.