Can a layman publish a scientific paper?

[bill alsept]

Does anyone know the best place if any for a layman to publish a scientific paper or article?

 

[Pythagorean]

I wonder if you even need to hold a degree since peer-review is a blind process? You have to pay to publish an article in a journal, which is usually covered by a grant and always has to pass peer review.

If a laymen can afford the costs (time, energy, and money) of publishing an article himself (because you won't likely make a convincing PI for a grant) and also has a scientific story with the intellectual merit to pass peer reviews then I don't sees what's stopping them.

 

[Pengwuino]

I wonder if you even need to hold a degree since peer-review is a blind process? You have to pay to publish an article in a journal, which is usually covered by a grant and always has to pass peer review.

If a laymen can afford the costs (time, energy, and money) of publishing an article himself (because you won't likely make a convincing PI for a grant) and also has a scientific story with the intellectual merit to pass peer reviews then I don't sees what's stopping them.

No you don't need to hold a degree. You also don't have to typically pay up to a certain number of pages I believe, especially the electronic guys. You just need to pass the peer review process. I know there are endorses that you must post under to post onto the arxiv, but I'm not sure how much that process is used when actually publishing to real journals.

 

[Chalnoth]

The page costs for publishing vary significantly from journal to journal. Some have no charges. Some will charge you a few hundred dollars per page. It depends. However, the fact of the matter is that unless you really are an expert in the field you're trying to publish in, chances are the journal editors will take one look at your paper and trash it. This is simply due to the fact that it is very, very hard to obtain enough knowledge to add something intelligent to the scientific discussion on your own, without taking a degree in physics.

And I say this after obtaining a Ph.D. in physics. I had lots of high-minded ideas about possible advances in physics and whatnot as I was progressing in my degree. It turned out that they were all either complete nonsense, or had been thought of already, but thought through so very much more thoroughly. After getting to the point of actually contributing, I can tell you that far and away the easiest way to get to that point is to apprentice under somebody that is already there. And the only real way to do that is to complete a graduate degree in physics. The amount of knowledge you would have to obtain to get there on your own is such so huge that it is almost insurmountable.

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone know the best place if any for a layman to publish a scientific paper or article?

Welcome to PF!

While there are typically no restrictions on who can publish, one functional definition of "layman" might be "a person incapable of writing a scientific paper worthy of publishing". I don't mean this to sound harsh, but rather to be helpful - a person without scientific training has little hope of being able to produce technical content worthy of publication. You may receive no responses at all to your submission attempts. You may find it more productive to test the waters with your ideas in places like PF, where you might get real feedback.

 

[turbo]

You may find it more productive to test the waters with your ideas in places like PF, where you might get real feedback.

Though if your ideas are new enough and have not been previously supported in peer-reviewed publications, you may receive infractions for presenting them here. Read the rules on "speculative posts" and tread lightly.

As for people outside of academia/professional fields, yes. Such "laymen" publish. They are not supported by grants, and they are not under pressure to publish by their employers/sponsors, but they do publish for the sake of sharing what they have discovered.

 

[bill alsept]

I would like to present new or unpublished ideas but I realize the rules of the forum do not allow it. Does anyone have any suggestions as to the original question?
"Does anyone know the best place if any for a layman to publish a scientific paper or article?"
Thanks

 

[Chalnoth]

I would like to present new or unpublished ideas but I realize the rules of the forum do not allow it. Does anyone have any suggestions as to the original question?
"Does anyone know the best place if any for a layman to publish a scientific paper or article?"
Thanks

Let me just put it this way: if it isn't good enough for this forum, it is nowhere near good enough to publish in a scientific article.

The first point I would make here is that if you were to publish a scientific article at all, one of the main things you have to do is write down where this new paper fits into the current scientific conversation. That is to say, you have to talk about and reference other, related work.

So what you can do here is ask if people know of references for stuff on the topic you're thinking of.

 

[turbo]

Let me just put it this way: if it isn't good enough for this forum, it is nowhere near good enough to publish in a scientific article.

You have it a bit backward. If the concepts have not already been published in peer-reviewed journals, they will not be allowed to be expressed here on PF. That is a problem for a person who wants to bounce some ideas off others. One has to get outside of PF to make that work.

 

[bill alsept]

I thought I had read the rules correctly. The similar threads that you sent look like they may be helpful.
Thank You

 

[Chalnoth]

You have it a bit backward. If the concepts have not already been published in peer-reviewed journals, they will not be allowed to be expressed here on PF. That is a problem for a person who wants to bounce some ideas off others. One has to get outside of PF to make that work.

No, what I said as accurate. One of the fundamental requirements of a scientific paper is that it must fit into the current scientific discussion. That is to say, it has to be positioned in relation to other ideas that have already been published. And that requirement alone is good enough to pass the bar in this forum for just about every idea. This isn't the best place to do that sort of thing, but it is at least good enough.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would like to present new or unpublished ideas but I realize the rules of the forum do not allow it. Does anyone have any suggestions as to the original question?
"Does anyone know the best place if any for a layman to publish a scientific paper or article?"
Thanks

There are generally two types of paper. Review articles and experimental. The former summarises a current field and provides a novel discussion and/or opinion. The latter reports on experimental results.

Whilst there are no barriers to who can publish a paper it's unlikely a layman will have the resources or expertise to perform experiments and generate enough data to publish. A review article is more likely but I fail to see how someone who by definition is not a professional would be able to research a field well enough to provide a good enough discussion on the topic.

Lastly, please bare in mind personal theories and/or ideas are not suitable for publishing in a scientific journal without experimental data to back them up.

 

[Chalnoth]

There are generally two types of paper. Review articles and experimental. The former summarises a current field and provides a novel discussion and/or opinion. The latter reports on experimental results.

I don't think that's an accurate breakdown.

Review articles are typically solely focused on summarizing the current scientific discussion in a particular field. They act as resources to people who want to get an overall picture of a particular field without having to wade through dozens of individual papers.

The remaining papers vary significantly depending upon the context. Some are reports of experimental results. Some are new theoretical ideas. Some are new data analysis methods. Some are new analyses of existing data. Basically, your normal scientific paper has two requirements to get published:
1. It must fit into the existing discussion on a particular topic.
2. It must say something useful that adds to that discussion.

There is also a third requirement that it must be written well enough that the reviewer won't reject it out of hand. But that's somewhat separate from the content of the paper.

Lastly, please bare in mind personal theories and/or ideas are not suitable for publishing in a scientific journal without experimental data to back them up.

This also isn't true. Again, it has to fit within the existing discussion. But there is no limitation that new ideas be founded in experiment. Otherwise, speculative new theories would never be proposed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think that's an accurate breakdown.

I used the word "generally" on purpose, to indicate that I was simplifying matters. Having said that I disagree with how you describe review articles; they are not always just summaries. Often they include novel discussion points or conclusions.

This also isn't true. Again, it has to fit within the existing discussion. But there is no limitation that new ideas be founded in experiment. Otherwise, speculative new theories would never be proposed.

The individual may not need to do experimentation themselves but they have to have experimental data to back them up from other sources.

 

[cristo]

The individual may not need to do experimentation themselves but they have to have experimental data to back them up from other sources.

That's not true. You don't have to back up your speculative ideas with data, though it is normally good to suggest some sort of experiment that may be able to rule out your theory. It's not very likely that this experiment will have been done before proposing the theory, though.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's not true. You don't have to back up your speculative ideas with data, though it is normally good to suggest some sort of experiment that may be able to rule out your theory. It's not very likely that this experiment will have been done before proposing the theory, though.

Ok, now I think we're discussing different things. I didn't mean that the explanation proposed needed experimental data to confirm it but that it needed data to support it is a credible theory. I.e. proposing an explanation for phenomenon X is going to have to reference previous study of the phenomenon. This will require an understanding of current published data that will probably be beyond the capability of a layman.

In retrospect I have not have explained what I was thinking well enough.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ok, now I think we're discussing different things. I didn't mean that the explanation proposed needed experimental data to confirm it but that it needed data to support it is a credible theory. I.e. proposing an explanation for phenomenon X is going to have to reference previous study of the phenomenon. This will require an understanding of current published data that will probably be beyond the capability of a layman.

In retrospect I have not have explained what I was thinking well enough.

Nope, not even that far. You can, for example, engage in a pure what-if:

"Previously, theorists have assumed that X is true. But what happens if we relax this assumption?"

Often these papers are more interesting if they are tied to experiment, but not always. Another way for a new theoretical idea to be interesting is for it to solve a long-standing theoretical problem (that is, a particular aspect of currently-accepted theory which is considered unpalatable). String theory is perhaps the ultimate example of a field which is almost purely disconnected from experiment, but which is large and thriving within the community, and largely considered a useful pursuit.

 

[Evo]

There are also different levels of journals. Some journals that say they are peer reviewed will accept anything submitted. We've noticed that Thompson-Reuters has recently included many questionable publications (even online only) and pop-science magazines in their list.

 

[Astronuc]

I would like to present new or unpublished ideas but I realize the rules of the forum do not allow it. Does anyone have any suggestions as to the original question?
"Does anyone know the best place if any for a layman to publish a scientific paper or article?"
Thanks

Actually - FQXi welcomes the participation of scientists, laypeople, and philanthropists. Find out more here!

http://www.fqxi.org/about

I know a layperson who had a paper published at FXQi. His paper would not be suitable for PF.

He's also had some interactions with one or two prominent theoretical physicists, one of whom was apparently interested in some of his ideas.

 

[bill alsept]

Thanks everyone, I think I will check on the sources you have suggested. Chalnoth I like what your saying about new theoretical ideas being presented especially if it solves a long-standing theoretical problem. Thats what we need more models to work with. Some of the ones we have are getting stagnet.

 

[Borek]

Let me just put it this way: if it isn't good enough for this forum, it is nowhere near good enough to publish in a scientific article.

Not exactly. We don't allow discussion of unpublished research (especially now, after Independent Research subforum is closed). Does it mean research we don't want to discuss here can't be published? No, it is not our job to decide. It can make its way through the standard peer review procedure, become published, and from this moment on it will be a valid discussion subject at PF.

From this point of view I agree with Turbo - you got it reversed. It is publication first, PF second, not the other way. At the same time I agree that something that is too cranky for us at PF has probably no chances of getting published.

 

[Zarqon]

Not exactly. We don't allow discussion of unpublished research (especially now, after Independent Research subforum is closed). Does it mean research we don't want to discuss here can't be published? No, it is not our job to decide. It can make its way through the standard peer review procedure, become published, and from this moment on it will be a valid discussion subject at PF.

From this point of view I agree with Turbo - you got it reversed. It is publication first, PF second, not the other way. At the same time I agree that something that is too cranky for us at PF has probably no chances of getting published.

Sorry if it's slightly off-topic, but why was the Independent Research forum closed? It seems like that would be a good place for someone like the OP to start getting feedback on ideas that may eventually be good enough to be published, but not ready enough. I mean, I'm not aware of any other online resource that could offer this type of serious feedback?

 

[bp_psy]

Thats what we need more models to work with. Some of the ones we have are getting stagnet.

I think that in order to be able to make such an assessment someone should have thorough knowledge about the current theories and also about the history of the field. I think few non-laymen would feel completely qualified.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Nope, not even that far. You can, for example, engage in a pure what-if:

"Previously, theorists have assumed that X is true. But what happens if we relax this assumption?"

Often these papers are more interesting if they are tied to experiment, but not always. Another way for a new theoretical idea to be interesting is for it to solve a long-standing theoretical problem (that is, a particular aspect of currently-accepted theory which is considered unpalatable). String theory is perhaps the ultimate example of a field which is almost purely disconnected from experiment, but which is large and thriving within the community, and largely considered a useful pursuit.

Ok maybe this is a field thing. I have never read a life science paper that contained such speculation.

 

[DoggerDan]

The page costs for publishing vary significantly from journal to journal. Some have no charges. Some will charge you a few hundred dollars per page.

Or, you can simply publish it. Publishing something these days costs absolutely nothing. It's free! Sign up for one of many publicly viewed online avenues and post. Technically, that's publishing. There is no criteria for publishing something.

The OP's question, therefore, is amiss. It's not about publishing, but about acceptance.

In response to that, I'd say publish away. If it's good, it'll stand its own ground. If it's not, no special inroads into publishing will help you. Thus, the focus is clear: If it can stand on it's own merit, it will. If not, it won't.

Now, having published, what next? Haven't a clue! How does one get one's efforts into the right hands? I think that's a concern of the OP's that hasn't been addressed.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ok maybe this is a field thing. I have never read a life science paper that contained such speculation.

Ahh, yes, well, that's perfectly understandable. Because you're dealing with such extremely complex situations, there is often no hope of getting anywhere by simply attempting to reconcile theoretical ideas. Physics, however, deals with the universe on such a basic level that many very significant forward strides have been made primarily based upon reconciling theoretical ideas rather than attempting to explain experiment per se.

General Relativity is perhaps the ultimate example here. The primary goal of General Relativity was to take accelerations into account with our new knowledge (at the time) of Special Relativity, while at the same time supposing that perhaps acceleration and gravitational fields are the same thing. There really wasn't any direct experiment suggesting that we should have produced anything like General Relativity. There was, in fact, precisely one observation back then that disagreed with Newtonian gravity: the orbit of Mercury was slightly off from the Newtonian prediction. But there was nothing in the orbit of Mercury that remotely indicated that a geometry-based description of gravity was necessary. The motivation for GR, then, was almost entirely theoretical.

It was really interesting, then, when once GR was developed, the strange orbit of Mercury was explained completely, and since then we've confirmed many other aspects of the theory. Even though it was developed in an almost entirely theoretical manner.

This is, I think, one big reason why string theory gets so much attention within the theoretical physics community: it solves the greatest long-standing theoretical problem we currently have in physics, as it reconciles gravity with quantum mechanics. And it does so in an amazing way: the theory wasn't built to produce quantum gravity, but quantum gravity is a necessary conclusion of the structure of the theory. And that, to many, makes it incredibly compelling even if we don't yet have any experimental evidence in favor of it. From this theory a tremendous variety of ideas have been spawned that we can, in principle, test. Supersymmetry came out of string theory, for instance, and it is hoped that if supersymmetry is true that the LHC will be able to detect it.

 

[Chronos]

There are more than a few 'pay to play journals' out there willing to massage your ego for the right price.

 

[jtbell]

It's not about publishing, but about acceptance.

More precisely, it's probably about "making something available for anyone to read" (which posting on your own website would do) versus "getting real scientists to look at it seriously."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ahh, yes, well, that's perfectly understandable. Because you're dealing with such extremely complex situations, there is often no hope of getting anywhere by simply attempting to reconcile theoretical ideas. Physics, however, deals with the universe on such a basic level that many very significant forward strides have been made primarily based upon reconciling theoretical ideas rather than attempting to explain experiment per se...

Thanks for the info it's interesting to learn how other areas of science are different in practice.

 

[turbo]

There have been a couple of comments about how a "layman" would be unable to compile experimental results and publish. For some fields, this is absolutely true. It would be impossible for an outsider to jump into HEP, for instance. If you have an interest in astrophysics, cosmology, etc, the prospects are much less daunting. There are tons of publicly-funded research/survey programs that make their results public.

One can mine N.E.D. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/, IRSA http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/FinderChart/, HyperLeda http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/ and other databases for raw data. It is up to you to compile the data, identify trends, draw inferences, and write up the results. Hopefully, you are comfortable enough in your position that you don't have to subsist on Cup o' Noodles during the year or two that this process will take. No sense in trying to replicate the whole grad-student experience if you don't have to.

 

[twofish-quant]

I wonder if you even need to hold a degree since peer-review is a blind process?

No you don't. However, technically you don't have to have any credentials to compose a symphony orchestra, climb Mount Everest, play chess at the grandmaster level, or swim the English Channel, but your odds of doing it without any prior experience is pretty close to nil.

If a laymen can afford the costs (time, energy, and money) of publishing an article himself (because you won't likely make a convincing PI for a grant) and also has a scientific story with the intellectual merit to pass peer reviews then I don't sees what's stopping them.

If...

 

[twofish-quant]

In response to that, I'd say publish away. If it's good, it'll stand its own ground. If it's not, no special inroads into publishing will help you. Thus, the focus is clear: If it can stand on it's own merit, it will. If not, it won't.

That has it backwards. In astrophysics, you only publish after you spend a few months getting everyone to beat the idea to shreds. If you have a brilliant new idea, you talk about it over lunch, and if it survives a lot of beating (and most don't), then you spend a few months refining it, and then you publish.

 

[twofish-quant]

There have been a couple of comments about how a "layman" would be unable to compile experimental results and publish.

That's actually not true for observational astronomy. There are a lot of good journals for amateur astronomers.

http://www.aavso.org/publications

With about $10K, you can put together a decent observatory and publish good papers.

If you want to do "real" astronomy, I suggest that you start there. Also I would strongly suggest that anyone that wants to publish theory avoid "crank-heavy" fields like cosmology and work on things like interstellar medium or variable star. Part of it is the idea that *I CAN EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE* gets in the way of actually doing so.

Part of the problem is that layman trying to do theory is that they don't know what the problem is enough to realize that it's not a easy problem to solve. One thing that you have to do in order to do something original is to understand what has been done before, and that usually takes a good two to three years.

 

[turbo]

That's actually not true for observational astronomy. There are a lot of good journals for amateur astronomers.

That is exactly the point that I was making. Did you even read my post? Just asking...

Also, you don't have to publish in some "amateur" journal. My collaborators and I published in "Astrophysics and Space Sciences" which is a well-respected peer-reviewed journal by Springer. You do not need academic or professional credentials to publish serious scientific papers. You just need to do careful meticulous work and come up with something unique or "new" in some sense.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1492

 

[Chalnoth]

If you want to do "real" astronomy, I suggest that you start there. Also I would strongly suggest that anyone that wants to publish theory avoid "crank-heavy" fields like cosmology and work on things like interstellar medium or variable star. Part of it is the idea that *I CAN EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE* gets in the way of actually doing so.

Yes. I think this largely comes down do the Dunning-Kruger effect, where if people don't actually know a whole lot about something, people are extremely prone to overestimating their knowledge.