How to get peers to review your work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nataliaeggers
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Peer review
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges faced by individuals, particularly those outside of academia, in obtaining peer reviews for their scientific papers. Participants explore various avenues for finding physicists willing to review work, the nature of peer review, and the expectations surrounding it.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express that obtaining peer reviews is a common issue for "outsiders" and inquire about possible avenues for finding physicists willing to review their papers.
  • One participant clarifies that "peer review" typically refers to the process of submitting a paper to a journal, suggesting that the OP may be looking for informal feedback rather than formal peer review.
  • There are suggestions to contact local universities or post papers online to attract physicists for review.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of the paper being submitted, particularly if it challenges established theories like relativity or quantum mechanics, with some participants suggesting that such submissions may not be taken seriously.
  • Another participant questions the OP's understanding of the peer review process, noting that medical doctors typically engage with peer review in their field.
  • Some participants reference previous discussions and articles related to peer review and independent research, indicating that this is an ongoing topic of interest within the forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach for obtaining peer reviews. There are differing views on the nature of peer review and the likelihood of receiving constructive feedback, particularly for unconventional ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the OP's familiarity with the peer review process and the expectations surrounding it. There are also concerns about the potential flaws in the OP's work and how that might affect the willingness of others to engage with it.

nataliaeggers
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I’m getting to understand the forum and I’m sorry if I have misused somehow, but I see that getting peer reviewed is a common problem faced especially by “outsider”.
If peers won’t open your paper, and, consequently, won’t review it, so, how (or where) is it possible to find physicist to review your paper?
Are there PhD physicists that charge for reviewing your paper? If not — they’re leaving money on the table.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We had a thread recently on this in the Feedback forum. Let me see if I can find it...
 
I don't see it offhand in Feedback, so it may have been in GD. I have to run now, so can anybody else find that thread and post a link to it? Thanks.
 
berkeman said:
I don't see it offhand in Feedback, so it may have been in GD. I have to run now, so can anybody else find that thread and post a link to it? Thanks.
I think the OP already found that!

 
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
nataliaeggers said:
I’m getting to understand the forum and I’m sorry if I have misused somehow, but I see that getting peer reviewed is a common problem faced especially by “outsider”.
If peers won’t open your paper, and, consequently, won’t review it, so, how (or where) is it possible to find physicist to review your paper?
Are there PhD physicists that charge for reviewing your paper? If not — they’re leaving money on the table.
I think you may have a misunderstanding of what "peer review" means, though it may partly be moot....

"Peer review" is what happens when you submit a paper to a journal for publication; they send it to several experts in the field for review. What you need, just for a physicist to review it, isn't "peer review".

There's lots of places online you could post it that might attract a physicist to take a look, but you may have better luck just contacting a local university and offering to pay someone to read it.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, berkeman, mcastillo356 and 1 other person
nataliaeggers said:
getting peer reviewed is a common problem faced especially by “outsider”
Are you at a University? A student? Or member of a scientific organization?
 
nataliaeggers said:
I’m getting to understand the forum and I’m sorry if I have misused somehow, but I see that getting peer reviewed is a common problem faced especially by “outsider”.
If peers won’t open your paper, and, consequently, won’t review it, so, how (or where) is it possible to find physicist to review your paper?
Are there PhD physicists that charge for reviewing your paper? If not — they’re leaving money on the table.
It depends what the paper is about. If it's along the lines of:

"There is a fundamental flaw in relativity and/or QM that physicists have overlooked. My theory fixes this ... "

Then, you are wasting your time.

It is, however, possible to challenge existing default position. Here's a speculative paper on whether the Big Bang could be part of a cyclic cosmology:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.24263

Does your paper (in general terms) look anything like that?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
FYI, @PeroK , @pinball1970 et al, OP has stated in another thread that they are a medical doctor who has conducted easily replicatable experiments that contradict GR.
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, BillTre and pinball1970
  • #10
russ_watters said:
FYI, @PeroK , @pinball1970 et al, OP has stated in another thread that they are a medical doctor who has conducted easily replicatable experiments that contradict GR.
General relativity!? Right ok!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #11
russ_watters said:
FYI, @PeroK , @pinball1970 et al, OP has stated in another thread that they are a medical doctor who has conducted easily replicatable experiments that contradict GR.
I didn't think there were any elementary experiments that tested GR. As distinct from Newtonian gravity. Pound-Rebka or Hafele-Keating must be the simplest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #12
nataliaeggers said:
I’m getting to understand the forum and I’m sorry if I have misused somehow, but I see that getting peer reviewed is a common problem faced especially by “outsider”.
If peers won’t open your paper, and, consequently, won’t review it, so, how (or where) is it possible to find physicist to review your paper?
Are there PhD physicists that charge for reviewing your paper? If not — they’re leaving money on the table.
I hope you understand that the most likely outcome of revewing your paper will be that it is flawed for some elementary reason.

Since you are a medical doctor what would your reaction be if someone asked you how he can get MDs to review his work on the mistakes he has found in standard medical practice?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, berkeman and BillTre
  • #13
martinbn said:
I hope you understand that the most likely outcome of revewing your paper will be that it is flawed for some elementary reason.

Since you are a medical doctor what would your reaction be if someone asked you how he can get MDs to review his work on the mistakes he has found in standard medical practice?
My first thought was surprise that an MD wouldn't be familiar with the peer review process. Don't most MDs sometimes publish papers....or at least read medical journals and know how they work?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre, martinbn and pinball1970

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K