Accepted physics paper. Woo hoo.

In summary, sylas announces that he is now officially a published physicist, though it may not seem as impressive upon closer inspection. He thanks the community for their support and announces the reference and subject matter of the paper. He also mentions his online pseudonym and his preference for keeping his online identity separate from his offline one. He asks for no detailed discussion on the content, but just wants to share the news with his friends and colleagues. Other members congratulate him and mention their own recent publications.
  • #1
sylas
Science Advisor
1,647
9
Well, word has just come through so I'm going to announce it here. I'm now officially a published physicist! If you really go into the details it isn't quite as impressive as might appear at first glance, but hey. I'll accept congratulations in any case! :approve:

I'm very pleased, but to keep this in perspective, it is in a comparatively minor journal, and the accepted paper is a "comment" on a preceding paper, and the paper we comment on is an oddity which has no real scientific influence, and the content of our paper is easily within what is accessible to an undergraduate studying the relevant aspects of thermodynamics. Originally I had felt it wasn't even worth writing a paper on it, but I was persuaded to join in the project. None of my co-authors are prominent as physicists.

The reference is:
  • Joshua Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann (2010) Comment On "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", (to appear in) http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/ijmpb.shtml , Vol 24, Iss 10, March 30 2010.
I'm Chris Ho-Stuart. I've already given my own name here at PF in my blog article https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1316" , but I like to keep my life online distinct from my life offline, so I use a pen-name online. I don't mind my name being known; it isn’t a secret. But I prefer to be known here as "sylas", and the name now feels very natural to me, and I don't like having my own name in routine use online. I've even used my pseudonym on occasion in real life when booking a restaurant or something, as "Chris" is just a bit, well, common. (No offense, all my many fellow Chrises out there. :cool:)

Chris Colose is also a member here, but currently inactive, I think.

The subject matter of our paper is climate, but only at a very elementary level. In particular, it isn't about "climate change", and neither is the paper we respond to, although it tends to present itself in that light. The point at issue is much simpler; it is whether or not the "greenhouse effect" as described in conventional atmospheric thermodynamics is a violation of the second law. Hence it is probably technically within the current guidelines for discussion, but in practice it rarely stays that way. I won't be opening any new threads on the content in any case; and I'll support without qualification or qualm the mentors in applying the guidelines to any discussion anyone else might bring up. Personally, I now devote pretty much all my PF content discussions to cosmology matters, which is a long standing interest of mine.

Relevant links:
  • The http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/ijmpb.shtml .
  • The paper we comment upon (GT09).
  • My PF blog article, https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1493 . This is actually a more general piece, as part of a series of 4 posts I used to kick off my PF blog "What is mainstream science", "Journals to avoid", "When peer review fails", and "How to debate online". The paper GT09 was one of four examples I used where peer review slipped up, and one member here queried that, so we talked a bit about that in the comments. That blog also has some links to threads in the main forum, which should not be reopened for discussion.

I'm not wanting to open this thread to detailed discussion of the content here -- just let friends and colleagues here know of a forthcoming physics publication for which I am a co-author. I'm sure even people who disagree with me on the now completed climate discussions will still be happy for me and my co-authors simply at a personal/professional level! Some of the content of the paper actually appeared originally in my posts on climate at physicsforums.

Cheers -- sylas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well done! Nice to see you've carried on discussing climate
 
  • #3
Congrats! Even if such things are minor in some scales, they can make someones day, week, or even month :smile:
 
  • #4
congratulations sylas. :smile:
 
  • #5
Congratulations Sylas. It doesn't matter how small a publication it is, there are many, many people who would love to be in your situation right now. Me included:blushing:
 
  • #6
Congrats! I know how you feel, Sylas. It's a kick!
 
  • #7
Congrats sylas!
 
  • #8
Congratulations, sylas!
 
  • #9
Congrats, One paper complete, a hundred more to go. :approve:
 
  • #10
Congrats Sylas! Not bad for a computer science geek! :biggrin:
 
  • #11
What a coincidence, I just got my first publication too:
  • Zhou Li, D. Baillie, C. Blois, and F. Marsiglio, Ground-state properties of the Holstein model near the adiabatic limit, Physical Review B (Vol.81, No.11)
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v81/i11/e115114"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1952"

Congratulations sylas!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Sylas,

Way to go...

From my brief time here at PF, I can honestly say you could not be in better company.

Thanks for your suggestion the other day too, BTW.

Rhody...:biggrin:
 
  • #13
I think that publishing is what defines a scientist. This is a wonderful landmark in your career, despite how "unimportant" your paper is, you have made a contribution to science and humanity as a whole. You should be proud of yourself, so go grab that Heineken beer and celebrate!

If you are persistent, it is only a matter of time before major journals would be ferociously competing for your papers and you give talks and keynote speeches at prestigious conferences.Edit: Congrats to NeoDevin too!
 
  • #14
That is really very impressive. We are really proud of you. WTG !
 
  • #15
Newton, Maxwell, Dirac, Einstein, sylas. All had first publications.
 
  • #16
Jimmy Snyder said:
Newton, Maxwell, Dirac, Einstein, sylas. All had first publications.
Lest we forget, so did Hitler and Kaczynski. It's up to the scientific community to figure out what we value, and what to respect. There's a lot of weird stuff out there, and it seems to be proliferating. I'll admit that my examples were sociological/political (considered sciences these days) but there are fringe publications in "hard" sciences. Multiverses, multiple undetectable dimensions, universal creation "bounces"... There is a lot of weirdness out there, though much of it seems to be tolerated if the authors have affiliations with prestigious institutions and have nominal support of others with good connections.
 
  • #17
Way to go, sylas! Getting published is huge recognition. Very cool.
 
  • #18
turbo-1 said:
Lest we forget, so did Hitler and Kaczynski.
Big deal sylas. I am soooo unimpressed. In fact, I am shocked at you.
 
  • #19
sylas said:
My PF blog article, https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1493 . This is actually a more general piece, as part of a series of 4 posts I used to kick off my PF blog "What is mainstream science", "Journals to avoid", "When peer review fails", and "How to debate online". The paper GT09 was one of four examples I used where peer review slipped up, and one member here queried that, so we talked a bit about that in the comments. That blog also has some links to threads in the main forum, which should not be reopened for discussion.

Cheers -- sylas
Finally got some free time to follow your links, read your blog, etc. Please post a link to your paper when it is published, or if you post it to ArXiv

You are quite right about the occasional failure of peer-review. I have been meaning to write a detailed refutation of a very sloppy and inaccurate paper on gravitational interaction in galaxy groups. The paper was written as an attack on a very prominent observational astronomer who made some inconvenient observations, and the authors used some "statistical" techniques that weren't even wrong. The paper should never have gotten past a middle-school student, much less a referee for an astronomy journal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Thanks very much everyone. It's likely to make a bit of a splash across some of the blogs when it comes out at the end of the month; particularly blogs which had highlighted the paper we are commenting on. We'll see.

And congratulations NeoDevin! I had a look at your paper. I need to learn more about optical phonons and polarons before I could begin to follow it; but it looks very impressive!
 
  • #21
Followup, just in case anyone goes looking. The paper was not in issue 8, as advertised in the OP. It may end up in issue 10 (April 20) fingers crossed.
 
  • #22
sylas said:
Followup, just in case anyone goes looking. The paper was not in issue 8, as advertised in the OP. It may end up in issue 10 (April 20) fingers crossed.

It has; and as requested here are the links. The issue was pretty late coming out. I speculate, with no real evidence, that this was in order to include a reply published with our rebuttal. It all appears in IJMP(B) Vol 24, Iss 10, 20 April 2010. Unfortunately the full papers are behind a paywall, but the abstracts are there. Further discussion of the paper would be inappropriate under physicsforums guidelines, but there's discussion going on offsite (link).

Thanks everyone -- over and out -- sylas
 

What is the significance of an accepted physics paper?

An accepted physics paper means that the research and findings presented in the paper have been deemed valid and worthy of publication by a reputable scientific journal. This adds to the body of knowledge in the field and can potentially have practical applications in various industries.

What is the process for having a physics paper accepted?

The process typically involves submitting the paper to a journal, where it undergoes a peer review process by experts in the field. The reviewers provide feedback and may request revisions before the paper is accepted for publication.

What criteria determine whether a physics paper is accepted?

A physics paper is typically judged based on its scientific rigor, originality, and significance to the field. It must also adhere to the standards and guidelines set by the journal it is submitted to.

What impact does an accepted physics paper have on the scientific community?

An accepted physics paper can have a significant impact on the scientific community by providing new insights and understanding into a particular topic. It can also spark further research and discussions among scientists in the field.

What should I do if my physics paper is not accepted?

If your physics paper is not accepted, you can consider revising and resubmitting it to another journal. You can also seek feedback from the reviewers and use their suggestions to improve your paper before submitting it elsewhere.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
963
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
83
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
987
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top