[MUST READ] Rules for submission to this forum.

[Tom Mattson]

NOTE: Submissions to the Independent Research Forum are moderated. That means that you will not be able to view your submission here until the thread has been approved by a Staff Member. Your submission is automatically sent to a moderation queue. There is no need to send your submission multiple times.

All submissions will be reviewed in a two-tier process, first for adherence to the basic formatting guidelines for this forum (Tier 1), then for scientific merit (Tier 2). Submissions rejected at the Tier 1 level will not be reconsidered for further review.

Tier 1 - Formatting Requirements:
1. The opening post must contain an abstract that states a) why the theory/work submitted to IR is important, b) what is new about it, c) where the proposed theory fills holes or addresses deficiencies in addition/contrast to being at variance with current theory, and d) a summary of results that support the new/revised theory.

2. The opening post must contain a section that either cites experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two. If the submission contains a theory that is empirically equivalent to an existing theory, then this section may be substituted with a section that demonstrates the empirical equivalence and that compares and contrasts the insights gained from the submitted and existing theories.

3. All references to relevant prior work must be documented in the opening post.

Tier 2 - Scientific Merit Requirements:
1. Threads which contain obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science, especially when used in attempt to compare one's personal theory to currently accepted science, will not be accepted.

2. New theories must not be already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments. If a new theory is strongly inconsistent with prior experiments, but the theorist is insisting that the experiments were either misconducted or misinterpreted by the scientific community, then the thread will be rejected. Instead the theorist should rebut the contradicting scientists in an appropriate journal.

3. Quantitative predictions must be derived, wherever appropriate, and mathematical expressions and equations must be presented legibly, using LaTeX whenever necessary. For instructions and sample code see this thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8997). This should be done in the opening post.

4. Theories containing obvious mathematical or logical errors will not be accepted.

5. Attachments will be permitted only for lengthy derivations and for diagrams. These attachments should be in pdf format, or a standard image format (i.e., GIF, BMP, JPG). Word documents will no longer be accepted for attachments in this forum.

The decision to accept or reject a thread for this Subforum rests with the Staff and Science Advisors of Physics Forums. Decisions will be reached by consensus, and will be based entirely on the guidelines listed above. The Tier 1 review will be completed within 30 days for all submissions. If your thread is considered for Tier 2 review, you will be notified by PM. If it is accepted after Tier 2 review, then it will appear in this Subforum.

If your submission is rejected at Tier 1, you will receive a notification via our automated warning system (NOTE: This will be entitled "Warning" but it is ONLY a NOTIFICATION; these are the limitations of our automated systems.) Submissions rejected at the Tier 1 level will NOT be considered for resubmission, so it is of UTMOST importance to comply with all formatting requirements.

If your submission is rejected after Tier 2 review, you will receive a PM that states the reason(s) for rejecting it. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, you may be invited to resubmit your theory with revisions that address the reviewers' concerns. Only ONE resubmission will be permitted. If only MINOR deficiencies are identified in either the first or second submission, we may invite you to correct those in consultation with one of the mentors without requiring a resubmission for full review; however, ALL deficiencies must be corrected as requested for acceptance.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Guidelines updated today.

[Astronuc]

I am adding this because people don't seem to be paying attention to the IR Guidelines for Submitting a proposal.

Reasons Why an IR Submission will be Rejected

Improper Format (Non Conformance with Guidelines for IR Submittal)

We want this forum to be something that everyone involved can be proud of. Items of Submitted Research should not only contain well-considered arguments, they should also look like the author takes some pride in his or her presentation. All the required sections have to be there (Tier 1: Rules 1, 2, and 3, and Tier 2: Rules 1 through 5). Equations should be done in correctly coded LaTeX. The post should be written in intelligible English. That sort of thing.

Insistence on these items is not nitpicking. It is simply asking for a minimum level of professionalism in the presentation.

Insufficient Documentation of Prior Work

Prior work must be documented (Tier 1, Rule 3). Simply having a reference section is not good enough if an item of Submitted Research refers to a 90 year old paper that no one could resonably be expected to find. Reviewers should not have to chase down references to check up on them. The onus is on the author to supply such information.

Insufficient Rigor

Quantitative predictions must be derived (Tier 2, Rule 4) if the derivation would not be clear to, say, an upper-level undergraduate in an appropriate discipline. The prediction may very well follow from the axioms of the theory, but it should not be up to the reviewer to try and figure out if that is the case. The onus is on the theorist to make himself clear, not on the reviewer to clear things up on behalf of the theorist.

Erroneous Reasoning

The logical or mathematical reasoning exhibited in an item of Submitted Research should be valid (Tier 1, Rule 1). Obvious errors will be weeded out in the screening process. Subtle errors missed during screening may be discovered in the course of discussion, after a thread has been accepted, and it is expected that the thread author will address such errors with due dilligence, or else the thread may not be allowed to continue.

Disagreement with Prior Experiments

Items of Submitted Research must not be inconsistent with known experiments (Tier 2, Rule 2). If the quantitative predictions of an item have already been found false beyond a reasonable doubt by an experiment that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the thread should be rejected.

Erroneous Disagreement with Accepted Science

While we should not assume a priori that an item of Submitted Research is wrong just because it disagrees with accepted scientific theories, it is undeniably the case that currently accepted theories are known to have a domain of applicability in which they yield reliable predictions. If an item contains fundamental flaws regarding such scientific knowledge, then it should be rejected (Tier 2, Rule 1). Items of Submitted Research are expected to disagree with accepted science. But the root of the disagreement must not lie in a misunderstanding of the latter.

Lack of Originality

The rules that refer to requirements placed on a "new theory" (or some equivalent variant of that expression) are to be interpreted with existential import. In other words, it is not possible to satisfy those rules unless a new theory is actually submitted. This would cause us to reject critiques of currently accepted scientific theories, with no replacement offered.


Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

[Evo]

Actually, Astronuc, those guidelines you posted above were written back in 7-05 By Tom Mattson for the Court Room, I guess they are ok posted here also.