Could Einstein's Revolutionary Ideas Be Published Today?

[Nereid]

The title of this thread comes from https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2038753&postcount=23" in the Cosmology section of PF.

It started a mini-thread that has nothing to do with cosmology, but it's quite interesting, so I thought I'd kick off a discussion here.

The general topic I'd like to discuss is the extent to which someone "outside" the mainstream could get paradigm-changing, comparable-to-General-Relativity (or Darwin's theory of evolution, or ...) ideas published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

There are some lead-in parts that seem easy to establish.

For example, anyone with a few euros and an internet connection can set up a website to publish any non-mainstream scientific ideas, and hundreds do. Further, in physics and astronomy there are sites like PF and BAUT which give those with such ideas the opportunity to have them challenged, and there are paper-based journals which explicitly welcome such ideas. So while there may be some modern day Ramanujan's, there are essentially no barriers to getting new ideas published.

Second, hundreds or thousands of really smart people with formal training in physics (etc) do actually read non-mainstream stuff! (the reasons why they use their time that way are, no doubt, many and varied, but are not important for this thread). If there is even the tiniest of hidden gems in any of the published non-mainstream stuff, it's quite unlikely to go unnoticed for long. What happens once it's noticed depends, of course, on many things. For example, the gem may be so poorly understood by its author that when some really smart person who spotted it, developed it, and later published it in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, that author (inventor?) may not have been able to recognise it.

This point may be somewhat contentious, so let's discuss it.

Anyway, I reckon that any really fantastic idea, like GR or the theory of evolution, would not remain obscure for long today, even if it were first published on some crackpot website*.

Which brings me to the thing I'm most interested in discussing: whence comes this apparently persistent myth that revolutionary ideas in physics would be difficult to get published, in relevant peer-reviewed journals? Why do many apparently smart and well-educated people feel this way?

* there is one important caveat to enter: English; a really cool idea published in a crackpot website in Tagalog (for example) may go quite unnoticed ...

 

[heldervelez]

I did not, but suppose that I have published a book with all the physics and supportive math, againts the mainstream theory X.

What are the chances to be commented and readed and cited by specialists?
Zero, in my oppinion.

I can cite an example. By 2000 I've found a book out of the mainstream about particle physics extending the electromagnetism and to me it was refreshing.
It was written both to the speclalists and for the laymen. The book was written by an electronic engineer, I am an electronic engineer, the subject was electromagnetism. The contents was coherent and fruitfull.
But not a single comment pro or against I've found.

(I don't know if in this GD forum I can share the book's name without 'punishment')

Publish in a peer rewiewed journal? Only if one's belong to a credited institution.

Suppose that I am an independent resercher, have an hobby, and I have (actually I don't have) a new theory, against the mainstream. My papper will not be accepted. Just like that. Give me one example that contradicts me.
Even at arXiv is mandatory the existence of an endorsement by someone that is already credited.

Even at PF we can not discuss out of the mainstream.

In this GD forum can we talk out of the mainstream? I don't know.
Can I start a thread to discuss a document in the arXiv,left there in 2002, and that is not mainstream and was uncommented until now? (The doc. is not mine (*)

Suppose that the document is the end of the Dark Era of Cosmology. Find me a teacher of the actual mainstream that is capable of saying :
let me read it, discuss why I am wrong, and I have spend my working life labouring in error.

(*) The actual author had to associate to someone else (that as nothing to do with the contents of the paper) that belongs to a credited Institution and get published.

Einstein and Galileu can not post in this forum against mainstream.
Get publish? I think it is not possible.

100 years have gone since Einstein appeared. We deserve another one.
At least I've found mine. I feel a lucky guy, since beginning of 90s.

Are we prepared to reject the mainsteam?
I think that generally speaking we are not prepared to do so.

----- can you find a solution here ? I dont
At https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4079"
and at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=84348"
-----------------
as a sidenote about IR forum: I've submited there on 3 December and no news. And so I've published it on BAUT forum.
-----------------

 

[Ivan Seeking]

INFLATION-THEORY IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION
J. Deardorff, B. Haisch, B. Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol 58, pp. 43-50, 2005.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

None are employed by a University and you can't get much farther out of the mainstream. JBIS has always been considered cutting-edge, but it is considered a mainstream journal.

Jim Deardorff is a retired professor of atmospheric sciences. Puthoff and Maccabee are both employed by the government, and Haisch works independently. All three are physicists.

 

[Topher925]

Further, in physics and astronomy there are sites like PF and BAUT which give those with such ideas the opportunity to have them challenged, and there are paper-based journals which explicitly welcome such ideas.

PF only allows modern mainstream theories and nothing else. Not even non-mainstream theories which have relevant and recent publishing in popular and respected scientific journals are allowed to be discussed without penalty.

When it comes to discovering or realizing new scientific theories, the statement "one bad able spoils the bunch" comes to mind. There are a LOT of crackpots out there and it can be very difficult to distinguish between the genuine smart guys and the guys that just have to much time on their hands. Just go to amazon.com and search for "physics books" and you will find a very large number of books describing non-mainstream ideas. Some of them make a lot of sense but others...well not so much. There is really no way of distinguishing between the crackpots and the real outside the box thinkers without investing enormous amounts of time to review their material which no one is capable of doing. So if anyone is to take them seriously they pretty much have to have some relationship with a respected institution or create some kind of crazy elaborate machine or experiment that can't be explained by any other theory.

None are employed by a University and you can't get much farther out of the mainstream.

Compared to their 48 references, there is nothing non-mainstream about the paper.

 

[Nereid]

I did not, but suppose that I have published a book with all the physics and supportive math, againts the mainstream theory X.

What are the chances to be commented and readed and cited by specialists?
Zero, in my oppinion.

Well, books are considerably more difficult, and expensive, to publish than websites!

There is only one - of three - aspects I am interested in here, in this thread: being read.

If it's a book, then someone has to pay money to get a copy, and unless the advertising, book cover, etc for your book were quite good, then I doubt any specialist would waste (as they would see it) their money buying it.

I can cite an example. By 2000 I've found a book out of the mainstream about particle physics extending the electromagnetism and to me it was refreshing.
It was written both to the speclalists and for the laymen. The book was written by an electronic engineer, I am an electronic engineer, the subject was electromagnetism. The contents was coherent and fruitfull.
But not a single comment pro or against I've found.

Well, if it's simply a matter of citing examples, I've got two for your one!

There's a book by an astronomer who has hundreds of published papers to his name that is well known to every regular on most astronomy internet discussion fora; the book is (obviously) not peer-reviewed; the book contains the author's non-mainstream ideas (more than one of them actually). The core non-mainstream ideas in the book have been the subject of hundreds of threads, and thousands of posts (and not a few published papers too).

Clearly very different from your example.

Last year (or was it 2007), a wealthy person published a book containing what he considers to be a revolution in physics. Without trying too hard, you can get a copy of this book for free (or perhaps just s&h). The book has also been discussed, in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts, in internet discussion fora. Indeed, the author set up a website to foster such discussion!

(I don't know if in this GD forum I can share the book's name without 'punishment')

When in doubt, PM a Mentor (preferably one in charge of GD), and ask!

Publish in a peer rewiewed journal? Only if one's belong to a credited institution.

Suppose that I am an independent resercher, have an hobby, and I have (actually I don't have) a new theory, against the mainstream. My papper will not be accepted. Just like that. Give me one example that contradicts me.

This is what I am interested in discussing!

There are, of course, quite a few examples. An immediate one is right here in PF ... a certain long-standing PF member has developed a non-mainstream (cosmology) theory, and has had it published (in relevant, peer-reviewed journals). AFAIK, he is most certainly an independent researcher.

But an example or two is not what I want to discuss.

Rather, I want to discuss how this idea that a really good, even revolutionary, new idea in physics (or cosmology) would not get published, period.

Notice that I was careful to distinguish between being published and being published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal.

Also, between having the idea published in such a journal, and having the author of the idea being the person whose name appears on the paper.

Even at arXiv is mandatory the existence of an endorsement by someone that is already credited.

Even at PF we can not discuss out of the mainstream.

Have you checked out https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146"? The requirements for acceptance are, I'm sure you'd agree, incredibly easy to meet.

How about http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/"?

In this GD forum can we talk out of the mainstream? I don't know.
Can I start a thread to discuss a document in the arXiv,left there in 2002, and that is not mainstream and was uncommented until now? (The doc. is not mine (*)

Suppose that the document is the end of the Dark Era of Cosmology. Find me a teacher of the actual mainstream that is capable of saying :
let me read it, discuss why I am wrong, and I have spend my working life labouring in error.

I don't know how many professional scientists you know, but IMHO a substantial minority, even perhaps a majority, would be overjoyed to be associated with a revolution as great as quantum mechanics, General Relativity, or Dark Energy!

The part I think may be fruitful to focus on is why such an astonishingly large proportion of non-mainstream ideas that are published are so depressingly awful, in terms of their scientific content. IOW, why should anyone with ~10+ years' of formal training waste their time reading non-mainstream stuff that is so obviously fatally flawed (as science)?

If you are interested, you may read shttp://www.bautforum.com/forum-intr...ar-half-s-experience-baut-s-atm-section.html".

(*) The actual author had to associate to someone else (that as nothing to do with the contents of the paper) that belongs to a credited Institution and get published.

Einstein and Galileu can not post in this forum against mainstream.
Get publish? I think it is not possible.

100 years have gone since Einstein appeared. We deserve another one.
At least I've found mine. I feel a lucky guy, since beginning of 90s.

Are we prepared to reject the mainsteam?
I think that generally speaking we are not prepared to do so.

----- can you find a solution here ? I dont
At https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4079"
and at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=84348"
-----------------
as a sidenote about IR forum: I've submited there on 3 December and no news. And so I've published it on BAUT forum.
-----------------

Good for you!

In any case, I don't want to discuss the hypothetical of whether Einstein or Galileo would have had difficulty publishing today; I want to discuss where the idea that really good non-mainstream ideas, developed by non-professionals, would not end up in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal comes from.

You have helped with this discussion, by contributing your own perspective, which includes your view that you have found several such potentially revolutionary ideas which were not (as far as you know) published in leading journals.

That raises, for me at least, two points:

1) what differences are there between the criteria you used to assess these ideas you came across and the criteria professionals use?

2) why do you think that if there were some really cool aspects to the non-mainstream ideas you've seen no smart professional would have picked it up and ran with it (with or without the authors knowledge or permission)?

 

[Evo]

I can cite an example. By 2000 I've found a book out of the mainstream about particle physics extending the electromagnetism and to me it was refreshing.
It was written both to the speclalists and for the laymen. The book was written by an electronic engineer, I am an electronic engineer, the subject was electromagnetism. The contents was coherent and fruitfull.
But not a single comment pro or against I've found.

(I don't know if in this GD forum I can share the book's name without 'punishment')

If the book is crackpot nonsense, then a discussion of it could get locked or deleted if the intent of the poster was to push misinformation.

Our goal here is to be a place where students, professionals, and other interested members can read about and discuss mainstream science. We do not want to be "everything to everyone", there are plenty of those sites on the internet. It seems one of the reasons that people with "non-mainstream" ideas want to post here is because of the fact that PF has an image of hosting "credible" science. That doesn't mean that a discussion is limited to only "popular" science, but that any discussion of science should be backed by credible and verifiable sources.

General Discussion is more lax, but it is not for serious discussions of science.

As you noted, we do have the Independant Research forum for people to discuss "non-mainstream" ideas they have, but there is a minimum criteria for what is accepted. I have notified Astronuc, the mentor in charge of IR, that you would like a decision on your submission. I found one on UFO's that you posted on Dec 2nd, I believe that is the one you are referring to.

I will leave the rest in the capable hands of Nereid.

 

[humanino]

In a century, discussion forums will have threads entitled "Could Evo moderate today ?"

 

[wolram]

In a century, discussion forums will have threads entitled "Could Evo moderate today ?"

she would be 121yrs old.

 

[Gear300]

You shouldn't get discouraged if you're publishing while outside the mainstream. The system now days is a bit annoying. Jobs have become too specified, too capitalist based, too social based, and so forth. Even the research people do is not carried out to the fullest of what they want to do. However, if you were to get a nice and simple position outside the mainstream, in which you do not have to do much work and you have a lot of time to yourself, then that would be pleasant...you could spend more time thinking on what you want to think than wasting it on "mandated" projects assigned to you by some institution.

 

[Hurkyl]

she would be 121yrs old.

Okay, so she'll be a brain in a jar. But by then you will be able to surf the internet using brain waves, so no problem.

 

[Evo]

Okay, so she'll be a brain in a jar. But by then you will be able to surf the internet using brain waves, so no problem.

Who says that I am not already a brain in a jar? An evil experiment by Greg that went oh so wrong.

Anyway, we're hijacking Nereid's thread.

 

[Nereid]

PF only allows modern mainstream theories and nothing else. Not even non-mainstream theories which have relevant and recent publishing in popular and respected scientific journals are allowed to be discussed without penalty.

Except for the IR section.

When it comes to discovering or realizing new scientific theories, the statement "one bad able spoils the bunch" comes to mind. There are a LOT of crackpots out there and it can be very difficult to distinguish between the genuine smart guys and the guys that just have to much time on their hands.

This is something that interests me.

In my experience (see my later post for a link to where I wrote up some of it), there is very little out there, in crackpot-land, that is difficult to distinguish from really smart insights.

Further, if the domain of applicability of the crackpot idea is one you have considerable familiarity with, I have found it takes very little time to find fatal flaws. And conversely, if the idea you come across contains a potentially sparkling gem, it is a matter of merely a few minutes to realize that it has such potential, and generally no more than an hour or so to nail it down one way or the other.

However, it seems my experience and perceptions are not shared by many of those who have little or no formal training in physics (say). IF that is so (and I don't know that it is, yet), what I'm curious about is why?

What is it about non-mainstream ideas - that to someone with formal training and familiarity with the field are nonsense (scientifically) - that leads many others to feel they are potentially paradigm-shaking, revolutionary, or at least quite insightful?

And where does the idea - expressed indirectly by heldervelez - that really cool/smart ideas

a) can come from people without formal training? and (much more important)

b) cannot be recognised, by those with formal training, as potentially revolutionary?

Just go to amazon.com and search for "physics books" and you will find a very large number of books describing non-mainstream ideas. Some of them make a lot of sense but others...well not so much. There is really no way of distinguishing between the crackpots and the real outside the box thinkers without investing enormous amounts of time to review their material which no one is capable of doing. So if anyone is to take them seriously they pretty much have to have some relationship with a respected institution or create some kind of crazy elaborate machine or experiment that can't be explained by any other theory.



Compared to their 48 references, there is nothing non-mainstream about the paper.

May I ask if you really think it takes a lot of time to work out whether a randomly selected idea is 'pure crackpot' and does not contain a real gem (from outside the nine dots thinking)?

Of course it takes time to read a thick book, but in my experience the ideas in most such books are up on some website or other, and the central concepts fairly easily (and quickly) found.

How about this? With opportunities like PF's IR section, BAUT's ATM section, several 'alternative' journals, and so on, shouldn't it be incredibly easy to get a non-mainstream idea published in an easily accessible form? Especially one that contains a really cool, really smart insight?

 

[chronon]

I think that if Einstein were persistent then he would get his work published, although getting four papers published in one year seems highly unlikely. But, if you are not a career academic then getting publiished is not necessarily your first priority. Today the action seems to be more in exchanging views via the internet. But it is surprisingly difficult for the 'Independent Researcher' to become part of this (particularly those who aren't very pushy). So what are the options:

1)Put it on your website. No one will read it.

2) Get your paper published, so that you have a publication record. The trouble with this is it is likely to take a few months before you get an acceptance or rejection, and if it is a rejection then you are back where you started. In any case, this seems to be the wrong way round - you need to get advice on the way your paper is written, and what the best journal would be beforehand. And even if you've had a paper published on The electrodynamics of moving bodies, would anyone want to hear your views on Brownian motion?

3)Discuss it in a forum such as PF - which means the IR forum. If you take a look at this, it doesn't look very encouraging. A forum really isn't the place for the expert analysis which is required.

4) Approach an expert in the subject for their opinion. I've tried this with my Gödel number work (which is not trying to overturn anything, just something I think would be of interest to anyone who's heard about the incompleteness theorem), and the response tends to be 'Well it sound's interesting, I wish I had time to look at it'.

5) Submit your work to arxiv - but this requires an endorsement. So do you approach (a) an expert - see (4), or (b) someone else - well this tends to turn into something like peer review, and most people don't have the time.

I would also point out that although any reasonably competent physicist can tell that your ideas about The Photoelectric effect aren't totally crackpot, it is patronising to thing that their significance can be judged by anyone apart from an expert in the field.

 

[Nereid]

Topher925 pointed to a very real challenge facing someone looking for hidden gems among the material published outside the relevant peer-reviewed journals - there's such a huge amount of material, and it is overwhelmingly garbage*.

chronon has pointed to a natural corollary of this fact: independent researchers need to devote considerable time and effort to working out how best to get their ideas published so they will be read and considered by the niche scientific community who could appreciate its value.

Let's take a look at chronon's example, suitably generalised, and explicitly exclude ideas that even the author knows full well are non-mainstream.

First, PF's IR section provides invaluable guidance for an independent researcher who has no clue about publication of papers in scientific journals. There, are for example, certain conventions about the format and content of such papers that have little to do with the ideas they contain ... things like an abstract, showing you are aware of (and can cite) the previous work done in the narrow scope of your idea, and so on. If you, the independent researcher, are already au fait with these conventions, great! That puts you waaay ahead of most.

Second, while no one may, initially, read what you put up on your website, having your ideas published in this way establishes priority. And if you've done a good job with your website, and the presentation of your ideas on it, it is so much more efficient to simply refer to it than reproduce everything each time you share your ideas with others.

Third, it doesn't take much to get at least some people knowledgeable in the narrow field of your idea to come read your website; a little investment in 'marketing on the internet' (shall we say) is all it takes.

Fourth, if you don't already know which peer-reviewed journals are relevant for your idea, or who some of the 'leading lights' in the field are, perhaps you should take the time to find out?

Finally, let's not forget that in any field there are likely plenty of people who are interested in it, who like nothing better than to think about it, discuss ideas in it, and so on. Of course, if the field is quite esoteric, or highly demanding of certain skills, there may be very few such people. So where do those people hang out? And I don't mean just the ones with full-time jobs in some university or other ... there are retired folk, students, people with jobs doing something completely different ('amateurs'), ... While astronomy is not the branch of math that includes Gödel numbers, it has several internet discussion fora where lots of these sorts of people hang out. What are the internet discussion fora where folk hang out to discuss your branch of science?

* I feel no need to sugar-coat this; less than 10% of this stuff, and likely less than 1%, is free of such gross errors or shortcomings as to make reading almost all of it a complete waste of time.

 

[vanesch]

Another, related, question: why would anyone outside of the field, who came independently to a bright idea (so he is convinced), actually *want* it to be published - unless he sees it as an opportunity to have a career change or an opportunity to "get into the light" ?

Isn't it somehow more fun to contemplate that you are the one and only possessing the Big Secret, write it up in a some "secret grimoir" and hide it so that nobody else discovers it ?

(just tickling... )

 

[heldervelez]

Another, related, question: why would anyone outside of the field, who came independently to a bright idea (so he is convinced), actually *want* it to be published - unless he sees it as an opportunity to have a career change or an opportunity to "get into the light" ?

Isn't it somehow more fun to contemplate that you are the one and only possessing the Big Secret, write it up in a some "secret grimoir" and hide it so that nobody else discovers it ?

(just tickling... )

I can only focus on my personnal experience, (a long one, I hope to be retired from work within 3 years and have more time to be around the forum), and as we are in the GD I will extend a little of my history.

Back in the beginning of 90s we are a bunch of engineers doing under extreme pressure (timeline is mandatory) projects to legalize more than 80 local radio broadcasting stations.
I need to take a note and picked a paper form the garbage basket to ... and wow, the imprinted text was about cosmology, and a completely different view about the subject. I asked : Who had written this text? and one friend replied "Why do you want to know?"
"Give me more, please". The next night I have the first paper.
Why his he doing that when we are all commited to a project that was so important?
Because it is his lifetime work. He has allways being devoted to seek under the appearances. He puts everythigh we have for granted under doubt. Can you pick some student that dos not take for granted the Hubble Law? Can we think that someone can put funded objections? Unlikely. And if there is the need to do so?
The way of learn is almost always by repeating after the teacher, and in our minds the 'truths' became so deeply imprinted that we became unable to question.
In his youth, he was sick for longtime and imprisoned in his bedroom, reading books. A very good teacher of physics, in the secondary school, makes the rest.
Is professional live was spent as an electronic engineer in a big broadcasting radio station. When it was the time to became director he declined just to have more free time to pursue his goal. When I visited him at work there he was writing about Cosmology.
Formal training? He devoted all his life to learn and think about those issues.
He told me: " In two occasions the president of the Academy of Sciences (of my country) had the papper in his desk, and he could not even acknowledge that fact, person to person (they know each other). Probably the fear of falling in ridiculous if it put forward those ideas to others. The paper was sent to Nature and returned without comments.
By 2002 he manage to put it in the arXiv only because he became associated with a professor in the local university.

He is not in a hurry to became known. And he his writing a blog to laymen as a preparation to write a book, that is the proper way to comunicate when too much things are to be said. But blogs have a limited visibility and I know that it will be unnoticed.
He is afraid of loose his free time to complete his writings and loose his privacy. I do NOT know all his thoughts, to all extent.
I am afraid that the book could became unnoticed and uncommented as happened to others.
I am not in a hurry to say were we must look (if you are in despair you can look among astro-ph of 2002, 7842 entries, with the strong probability of skip it, eheh), because he needs time to continue his writings.

vanesch describes a genuine feeling of joy or fun because I know a big secret since the 90s. He is right, I feel lucky. Ironically, it started to me with a sheet of paper in the garbage. But there is some intelectual need to transmit the knowledge. Not for personal glory or career benefit. Sometimes life sorts the events in strange ways and we became spectators in the first row, or a mind of election as with my friend.

Of course in my age I am prepared to continue living without the 'amen' of the others and its natural that many, if not all, could say: Presumption without limits !.

My work here is like a postman: given the correct opportunity I will deliver a letter.

The resistance to the change (this one as I figure, or another one) will be enormous, and it will take a long time to exchange mentalities.

 

[Nereid]

I can only focus on my personnal experience, (a long one, I hope to be retired from work within 3 years and have more time to be around the forum), and as we are in the GD I will extend a little of my history.

Back in the beginning of 90s we are a bunch of engineers doing under extreme pressure (timeline is mandatory) projects to legalize more than 80 local radio broadcasting stations.
I need to take a note and picked a paper form the garbage basket to ... and wow, the imprinted text was about cosmology, and a completely different view about the subject. I asked : Who had written this text? and one friend replied "Why do you want to know?"
"Give me more, please". The next night I have the first paper.
Why his he doing that when we are all commited to a project that was so important?
Because it is his lifetime work. He has allways being devoted to seek under the appearances. He puts everythigh we have for granted under doubt. Can you pick some student that dos not take for granted the Hubble Law? Can we think that someone can put funded objections? Unlikely. And if there is the need to do so?
The way of learn is almost always by repeating after the teacher, and in our minds the 'truths' became so deeply imprinted that we became unable to question.
In his youth, he was sick for longtime and imprisoned in his bedroom, reading books. A very good teacher of physics, in the secondary school, makes the rest.
Is professional live was spent as an electronic engineer in a big broadcasting radio station. When it was the time to became director he declined just to have more free time to pursue his goal. When I visited him at work there he was writing about Cosmology.
Formal training? He devoted all his life to learn and think about those issues.
He told me: " In two occasions the president of the Academy of Sciences (of my country) had the papper in his desk, and he could not even acknowledge that fact, person to person (they know each other). Probably the fear of falling in ridiculous if it put forward those ideas to others. The paper was sent to Nature and returned without comments.
By 2002 he manage to put it in the arXiv only because he became associated with a professor in the local university.

He is not in a hurry to became known. And he his writing a blog to laymen as a preparation to write a book, that is the proper way to comunicate when too much things are to be said. But blogs have a limited visibility and I know that it will be unnoticed.
He is afraid of loose his free time to complete his writings and loose his privacy. I do know his thoughts, to all extent.
I am afraid that the book could became unnoticed and uncommented as happened to others.
I am not in a hurry to say were we must look (if you are in despair you can look among astro-ph of 2002, 7842 entries, with the strong probability of skip it, eheh), because he needs time to continue his writings.

vanesch describes a genuine feeling of joy or fun because I know a big secret since the 90s. He is right, I feel lucky. Ironically, it started to me with a sheet of paper in the garbage. But there is some intelectual need to transmit the knowledge. Not for personal glory or career benefit. Sometimes life sorts the events in strange ways and we became spectators in the first row, or a mind of election as with my friend.

Of course in my age I am prepared to continue living without the 'amen' of the others and its natural that many, if not all, could say: Presumption without limits !.

My work here is like a postman: given the correct opportunity I will deliver a letter.

The resistance to the change (this one as I figure, or another one) will be enormous, and it will take a long time to exchange mentalities.

To build on part of my reply to chronon, earlier in this thread.

One of the fantastic things that the internet has done is create opportunities for groups of people with some common interest to get together, virtually, to discuss the object of their common interest ... and the people in this small (or not!) community may be almost anywhere in the world (all you need is an internet connection)!

For those who have developed what they think are non-mainstream ideas in physics (etc), especially if they have no institutional connection (university, research lab, etc), the rise of these sorts of internet-based communities must surely be intoxicating. Provided they can find the right group, and provided issues of control (like ruthless and swift deletion of the inevitable flood of spam, clear rules, and consistent moderation) are properly addressed, here is a bunch of people who just love to discuss the very thing these thinkers have developed!

There are some downsides, of course.

For example, it is rare that lots of people are really, really interested in discussing (just) the ideas of only one non-mainstreamer (but not non-existent; google "Arp" for example), or even a general set of ideas based on a common theme*.

But perhaps the most, er, bracing corollary (shall we say) is exposure of these ideas to critical thinking and challenges from those who are more familiar with the field than the author. Of course, this sort of challenge is what peer-review is (partly) about, and what the relevant journals publish all the time ... internal inconsistencies in new (physics) theories, or inconsistencies between theory and observation/experiment either don't make it into print, or are addressed (sometimes quite bluntly) in subsequent papers (a process which may take even several decades).

Sometimes the last thing the author of an idea which is so attractive (to her or him) wants is to have that idea questioned and challenged ... and many discussion fora are rather to lax about implementing 'no ad hominem attacks' rules (or even having them in the first place). But if you, an author of a non-mainstream idea, are not only open to such critical examination but welcome it, then there are several places you can go. In astronomy, for example, there's http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/"; more generally, there's an excellent discussion forum that is open to any part of science (I'm awaiting a mentor's OK to mention it in this thread).

* one of the most amusing things to read is, in some non-mainstream discussion fora, how strict policies are introduced to handle 'crackpots'!

 

[heldervelez]

I have made a mistake "He is afraid of loose his free time to complete his writings and loose his privacy. I do NOT know his thoughts, to all extent." and if possible will make the correction within the post.
Sorry the mistake (and the poor english).

 

[tribdog]

If we didn't know general relativity right now and Einstein was around to publish it it would get published. If you come up with something as good as GR you will be able to get it published.If you can come up with something that makes testable predictions and is correct you can get it published. It just has to be good. Cream rises to the top.

 

[wildman]

If we didn't know general relativity right now and Einstein was around to publish it it would get published. If you come up with something as good as GR you will be able to get it published.If you can come up with something that makes testable predictions and is correct you can get it published. It just has to be good. Cream rises to the top.

Exactly! The problem with most crackpots is that they are boring. They make the same stupid mistakes over and over again. That is one reason people get so resistant to reading papers from people without qualifications. The papers tend to be very dull.

 

[chronon]

I think you're being too optimistic about the ease of getting work published. Hawking's work on evaporation of black holes was nearly rejected since 'Everyone knows nothing can escape from a black hole'. Of course, as an academic, he work would have been published eventually. But just suppose that, because of his condition, he had decided not to follow an academic career, but to study advanced GR on his own. Then I rather think that he would have faced much greater problems in getting his work known.

 

[cristo]

But just suppose that, because of his condition, he had decided not to follow an academic career, but to study advanced GR on his own. Then I rather think that he would have faced much greater problems in getting his work known.

But then, if this was the case he wouldn't have produced the work in the first place. If Hawking wasn't a 'celebrity' then he wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone, let alone write scientific papers.

 

[vanesch]

I'm more interested in finding out what are the true, deep motives of people to get their ideas published, whether mainstream or not. Of course, for professionals (academics or research engineers or the like), this is purely a matter of professional activity, which will partly determine their careers, so the question is moot: you publish (preferentially in reputed journals) simply because it is one of the different barometers by which your "quality" is gauged. Also for people who are not in a field, but want somehow to get into it, the motivation is similar. You need to put something on your CV. The more reputed are the journals, the more publications you have, the more citations you have, the more you have shown to be able to be "productive" in the academic or research community, and so the more attractive you are to a future employer.
Also, for independents who are into business related to their research, academic publications are a marketing element testifying of their seriousness, and hence, indirectly, of the quality of their product (be it a good or a service).

So in all these cases, the desire for publication is understandable.

But for the "uninterested" amateur, what can be the motives ? Is it the motive to find people to discuss with ? With what purpose ? To lecture, or to argue, or to get "expert opinions" ? As Nereid questions (rightly I think) most people with original ideas are not truly interested in a critical observation although some are. Do they want to set up a "research community" (with them as a leader, so is this some desire for power or leadership) ?
In all these cases, academic publication is less interesting than setting up a website with a forum (which can indeed now be done for a very modest amount of money, or even freely if you want to accept some publicity).

Is the motive to "show off" ? To show that you've done better than all those silly academicians who are paid to sit on their butt while you are earning your life honestly ?

Is the motive to "be recognized to be right (and them, wrong)" ? A kind of revenge ?

Is it the motive of glory ?

Or is the motive some megalomania, the world will be better off with my ideas, if only I could get past these idiots who don't want me to publish ?

I have to say that if I would do some "discovery" without it being something in a field I would want to work professionally in, I don't really see why I would go through all the trouble of wanting it to be published by all means. Of course, writing up an article is a nice way of "rounding up" the material, and as such, it is part of the "fun" of doing the thing (which was in any case an amateur activity) ; so you can just as well send it off to a journal (or two). But if they don't want it, where's the drama ?

One of the fantastic things that the internet has done is create opportunities for groups of people with some common interest to get together, virtually, to discuss the object of their common interest ... and the people in this small (or not!) community may be almost anywhere in the world (all you need is an internet connection)!

As you say, if the desire is just to *discuss* the material, an internet site is much more appropriate than an academic publication (of course, but we're back to what I'm saying, the academic publication could give some "prestige" to the internet site).

For those who have developed what they think are non-mainstream ideas in physics (etc), especially if they have no institutional connection (university, research lab, etc), the rise of these sorts of internet-based communities must surely be intoxicating. Provided they can find the right group, and provided issues of control (like ruthless and swift deletion of the inevitable flood of spam, clear rules, and consistent moderation) are properly addressed, here is a bunch of people who just love to discuss the very thing these thinkers have developed!

There are some downsides, of course.

For example, it is rare that lots of people are really, really interested in discussing (just) the ideas of only one non-mainstreamer (but not non-existent; google "Arp" for example), or even a general set of ideas based on a common theme*.

But perhaps the most, er, bracing corollary (shall we say) is exposure of these ideas to critical thinking and challenges from those who are more familiar with the field than the author. Of course, this sort of challenge is what peer-review is (partly) about, and what the relevant journals publish all the time ... internal inconsistencies in new (physics) theories, or inconsistencies between theory and observation/experiment either don't make it into print, or are addressed (sometimes quite bluntly) in subsequent papers (a process which may take even several decades).

Sometimes the last thing the author of an idea which is so attractive (to her or him) wants is to have that idea questioned and challenged ... and many discussion fora are rather to lax about implementing 'no ad hominem attacks' rules (or even having them in the first place). But if you, an author of a non-mainstream idea, are not only open to such critical examination but welcome it, then there are several places you can go. In astronomy, for example, there's http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/"; more generally, there's an excellent discussion forum that is open to any part of science (I'm awaiting a mentor's OK to mention it in this thread).

* one of the most amusing things to read is, in some non-mainstream discussion fora, how strict policies are introduced to handle 'crackpots'!

Right. So after this, what are the remaining drives for an amateur theorist to be published in academic journals, which are in any case only talking to a limited community of (according to the author) deluded people ?

And why did they develop their theory in the first place ? And why do they consider it important that other people (what people?) learn about it ?

 

[vanesch]

To put my interrogations in practice, let's apply it to this particular case:

I can only focus on my personnal experience, (a long one, I hope to be retired from work within 3 years and have more time to be around the forum), and as we are in the GD I will extend a little of my history.

Because it is his lifetime work. He has allways being devoted to seek under the appearances. He puts everythigh we have for granted under doubt. Can you pick some student that dos not take for granted the Hubble Law? Can we think that someone can put funded objections? Unlikely. And if there is the need to do so?

I find that rather naive, honestly. For all of known scientific history, what was firmly known at one time was put in a relative frame in a later epoch, so there's no reason to take our current knowledge as any more definitive as any other. It just gives the "picture of the day". That said, with the "picture of the day" we are nevertheless able to tell (more or less) coherent stories, and we are able to develop rather well working technology. So we can, if we desire so, trick ourselves into the delusion that we know it all now, but that's of course no more the case than was the case with the certainties people had in the 18th century.
When you're a student, first of all, you're younger and more naive, and secondly, it is in your advantage to "believe" what you are told, in order to complete your studies. But with some maturity, for sure you don't think that what we think to know for sure now has any absolute value, right ? It is just a way of organizing what we know in a not too incoherent way, in several cases, it does work. Am I saying that all we know is *wrong* then ? Most certainly not ! Only, all knowledge is relative, and all ideas can be overturned one day, no matter how sure we are of them right now. People who think in absolutes, outside of the frame of a working hypothesis, are, IMO, extremely naive and misguided.

He told me: " In two occasions the president of the Academy of Sciences (of my country) had the papper in his desk, and he could not even acknowledge that fact, person to person (they know each other). Probably the fear of falling in ridiculous if it put forward those ideas to others. The paper was sent to Nature and returned without comments.
By 2002 he manage to put it in the arXiv only because he became associated with a professor in the local university.

Now, why ? What is the goal of putting it there ? To convince ? To "prove the Great Conspiracy" ? To show how smart he is ? To "advance science and enter into History" ?

He is not in a hurry to became known. And he his writing a blog to laymen as a preparation to write a book, that is the proper way to comunicate when too much things are to be said. But blogs have a limited visibility and I know that it will be unnoticed.

So ? If it goes unnoticed, what is the drawback ? What is then the drama ? What is not right ?

He is afraid of loose his free time to complete his writings and loose his privacy. I do NOT know all his thoughts, to all extent.

Wait a minute... if this is his "life's work", it is his passion, his hobby, right ? It is what makes him feel good when he does it (like his neighbor, when he's gardening), no ? So how can he "loose his time" when doing so ? Or is it the fact of trying to get it known which worries him? In that case, why does he want to get it known ? Why not write up the book and HIDE it somewhere, so that maybe a future civilisation might find it ?

I am afraid that the book could became unnoticed and uncommented as happened to others.
I am not in a hurry to say were we must look (if you are in despair you can look among astro-ph of 2002, 7842 entries, with the strong probability of skip it, eheh), because he needs time to continue his writings.

If it goes unnoticed, what's the problem ? *that* is what I want to know...

vanesch describes a genuine feeling of joy or fun because I know a big secret since the 90s. He is right, I feel lucky. Ironically, it started to me with a sheet of paper in the garbage. But there is some intelectual need to transmit the knowledge. Not for personal glory or career benefit. Sometimes life sorts the events in strange ways and we became spectators in the first row, or a mind of election as with my friend.

What is the "intellectual need to transmit the knowledge" ?

Of course in my age I am prepared to continue living without the 'amen' of the others and its natural that many, if not all, could say: Presumption without limits !.

No, on the contrary ! If this is just a hobby, you don't need the amen of others. The neighbor might find his garden the most beautiful in the world, and doesn't need any comments from others. He doesn't need his garden to be published in an academic journal (unless he NEEDS that to *certify* that indeed, he has a beautiful garden).

If you live with the greatest girl in the world, you don't need to publish *that*, do you ?

The resistance to the change (this one as I figure, or another one) will be enormous, and it will take a long time to exchange mentalities.

Again, where's the need ?

I'm not criticising, I'm just trying to pin down the basic drives that make people want their ideas published and publicized.

 

[heldervelez]

quoting from Albert Einstein history at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Albert_Einstein
"Patent officeFollowing graduation, Einstein could not find a teaching post. After almost two years of searching, a former classmate's father helped him get a job in Berne
The city of Berne , is the "Bundesstadt" of Switzerland and the fourth most populous Swiss city ...
, at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property
The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property is the federal agency in charge of intellectual property matters in Swi...
, the patent office, as an assistant examiner. His responsibility was evaluating patent application
A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for the invention described and claim...
s for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein's position at the Swiss Patent Office was made permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he "fully mastered machine technology".

With friends he met in Berne, Einstein formed a weekly discussion club on science and philosophy, jokingly named "The Olympia Academy
The Olympia Academy was a group of friends in Bern, Switzerland, who met – usually at Albert Einstein's flat – i...
". Their readings included Poincaré
Jules Henri Poincar , generally known as Henri Poincar, was one of France's greatest mathematicians and theoretical ...
, Mach
Ernst Mach was an Austrian physicist and philosopher and is the namesake for the "Mach number" and the optical illusion kn...
, and Hume
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian, as well as an important figure of Western philosophy and o...
, who influenced Einstein's scientific and philosophical outlook.

During this period Einstein had almost no personal contact with the physics community."
In the actual days this kind of person can not publish.Mr. Vanesh question "What is the "intellectual need to transmit the knowledge" ? "
He are humans, and we need to comunicate. We are not autists. Why books are written? Why readers read? Why humanity advances?
Are we loosing hour time here clicking the keyboard?
No. I expect to know more than I know at the end of each day. It kepts me moving on.

to the question of mr. vanesh "So ? If it goes unnoticed, what is the drawback ? What is then the drama ? What is not right ?"

We can admit that later or sooner someone reading Hume, Poincaré, Mach, etc... will arrive to GR. Everyone looses if it was kept unnoticed. Probably I wouldn't be here clicking the keyboard.
And those men that inspired Einstein are pretty much out of fashion nowadays.

 

[CRGreathouse]

she would be 121yrs old.

Okay, so she'll be a brain in a jar. But by then you will be able to surf the internet using brain waves, so no problem.

Only old farts use the Internet, that's so 21st century.

 

[vanesch]

Mr. Vanesh question "What is the "intellectual need to transmit the knowledge" ? "
He are humans, and we need to comunicate. We are not autists.

We like social contact. We like to talk to each other, we like to engage in conversation. Now, certain subjects one is more knowledgeable about, or one is more interested in than others, and hence one enjoys particularly talking about those subjects. That's understandable. That's BTW also the answer to your other question, why are you spending time on PF ? Answer: because I like talking about several subjects touched upon here, because I like talking about physics and other subjects, such as this one, or just because I like chatting.

However:

Why books are written? Why readers read?

Why books are written ? There are probably many reasons, but I would say that the principal reason is: because people want to sell them and make money of them! The other reason is probably that people like writing books (whether they arrive at selling them or not) - just for the fun of writing. Like some people write poems, and then put them in the dustbin, or just send them off to one particular person. They had their fun of poetic creation. Some people write books on subjects which have a serious impact on society, like politics, economy, things like that.

Readers read because they enjoy reading (certain materials), because they want to learn things, because...

But books are commercial items. If you write a book, you invest in it, and you decide to "open a market". If you buy a book, you are a player in that market. Books who have a potential to find enough readers are published. The exist because their market exists.

Free books on the internet also exist. Everybody can do that. That's what Nereid said: there are now almost unlimited means of making information available. So why insist on wanting to publish in a scientific journal ?

Why humanity advances?

Because individuals are confronted to practical difficulties they want to solve, because individuals want to make money and sell stuff, essentially because people are confronted to problems and find solutions to them. I don't think humanity advances through scientific journals! Scientific careers advance through scientific journals. Science might advance a bit better through scientific journals. But certainly not humanity. Most essential elements of our modern society didn't make their way via scientific journals.
You can see scientific journals as a kind of archive of mention-worthy activities of members of the scientific community (universities, research labs,...).

Are we loosing hour time here clicking the keyboard?

Definitely! But we are having fun with it, no ?

to the question of mr. vanesh "So ? If it goes unnoticed, what is the drawback ? What is then the drama ? What is not right ?"

We can admit that later or sooner someone reading Hume, Poincaré, Mach, etc... will arrive to GR. Everyone looses if it was kept unnoticed. Probably I wouldn't be here clicking the keyboard.

GR is nice. The question is: would it have changed much to humanity if it hadn't been discovered 100 years ago, but only 50 years ago, or rather, 170 years ago ? GR doesn't solve many problems as of now. GR would probably have been discovered at a certain point ; it wouldn't have made much difference. It only makes a difference to those people understanding it more or less, and those are exactly the people of the "scientific establishment". Outside of that, I don't see what it means. So if you are not part of that establishment (and not planning to be part of it), what good would it do to put it in their records (journals) or not ?

Imagine that GR was actually discovered by a lone genius in 1850, who wrote it in his grimoir, and buried it in a box in his garden. What would have been different in this world if he got his paper published somehow (apart from the butterfly effect) ? Is there any important technology based upon GR ? Ok, people setting up precise timing systems over extended distances (GPS) would sooner or later find out that there are tiny corrections which they don't understand.
But that wouldn't have made any difference with the 1850 paper or not. 1916 was soon enough for GPS. And if it had been 1960, that was still ok.

My point is simply that a "lone discovery" doesn't matter for 99.99% (and probably 100%) of humanity, and that getting your paper in a journal or not doesn't matter much either if you don't want it to be a tick on the counter for a career or something. So there must be another drive by those people complaining about not being able to publish.

Now, don't understand me wrong, I think it is nice to try to give away for free one's ideas if one is outside of the scientific community, and if ever it gets published, then that is an "accepted gift" from an outsider to this machinery. But if it is refused, I don't see why the outsider is losing sleep over it.

 

[moe darklight]

vanesch, I'll have to completely disagree with you. Unless by "does it matter" or "does it make any difference," you are talking purely literally... in which case, no, it doesn't matter; and no great discovery not being shared matters... but then what does literally unequivocally matter? love? survival? anything? ... nothing "really" matters ... therefore, I must assume we are not talking from a purely existential perspective when we discuss these things, but on a human level. -- at a human level, yes, all of it matters.

science, and sharing discoveries matter just as much as art and sharing art matters. OK, it's possible to make a career out of either, but surely the significance of Chaucer doesn't lie in how much money he made out of his work (probably not much, considering the notion of a professional "Author" did not exist back then).
why then spend a lifetime creating those poems? (very hard work)

On the other side, Kafka's dying wish was for his unpublished work to be burned. Would it have made a difference had it been burned? no. But because it wasn't burned, because it was shared, even against his wishes, it did make a difference, and we now have "The Trial" and "A Hunger Artist", etc. which have inspired and influenced many people... some of whom are professionals in the world of literature, but the vast majority of whom are not.

GR or Newton's work or Euclid is no more "significant" solely to those ho find use in it professionally than Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" is significant solely to professional musicians and aspiring rock-stars.

Discovery and creativity, sharing personal discoveries with others, minor or great, and appreciating others' discoveries and creations, it seems to me at least, are essential to what it means to be human and become a part of the past (and, hopefully, future) thousands of years of human history.

 

[vanesch]

vanesch, I'll have to completely disagree with you. Unless by "does it matter" or "does it make any difference," you are talking purely literally... in which case, no, it doesn't matter; and no great discovery not being shared matters... but then what does literally unequivocally matter? love? survival? anything? ... nothing "really" matters ... therefore, I must assume we are not talking from a purely existential perspective when we discuss these things, but on a human level. -- at a human level, yes, all of it matters.

I'm trying to find out what are the real, deep reasons for wanting to publish in an academic journal (or wanting to have a large visibility and approval). I'm not saying that there are no such reasons. But I would like to know them.

You see, according to the indisputable First Principle of Vanesch Philosophy, there are only two things that matter in life: pleasure and wealth. If it doesn't bring pleasure, and if it doesn't bring wealth, it ain't worth it (but you might need some time to find out that it doesn't).

As you say, art is a very good example. You can create art, for the pleasure of creating it. After you've created it, on your own, you've had the fun. What happens with it afterwards doesn't matter. It can also be that you want to become famous. Then you want your art to be appreciated and sold. It could also be that what you actually want, is applause. What brings you pleasure, is the fact that others appreciate your stuff. You want kudos. You want to be "recognized" (you take great pleasure in showing your art and see that it pleases). You can use it as an excuse to have social contact. As a means of introducing you to certain people. There can be many reasons.

But would you want to have your art piece placed in a prestigious museum, when the director of the art told you it was rubbish, when you cannot get much appreciation from most people that actually regularly visit the museum ? Why on Earth would you want your thing to be there ? And not in the local hobby club room where you DO find people who appreciate it or at least want to talk about it ? Is it to be able to show off that you are now "like a real painter" ? That you can imagine yourself the equal of Da Vinci ?

why then spend a lifetime creating those poems? (very hard work)

Because he took pleasure in creating poems ?

On the other side, Kafka's dying wish was for his unpublished work to be burned. Would it have made a difference had it been burned? no. But because it wasn't burned, because it was shared, even against his wishes, it did make a difference, and we now have "The Trial" and "A Hunger Artist", etc. which have inspired and influenced many people... some of whom are professionals in the world of literature, but the vast majority of whom are not.

I'm not saying that amateur science cannot be interesting to others. I'm just saying that amateur science creates its own market, and there could very well be almost nobody on the "demand" side. If there is a large demand, the website containing it will have some success, the book containing it will be published and sold. So you will reach your "market". If there are no customers, well, then so be it. But why complain that you cannot get your masterpiece published in a scientific journal ? If nor the editor, nor most of its readers are part of the demand ? Are not interested in it ? Are more than anything, embarrassed about it ? You can try, but why complain, if they don't want the stuff ?

GR or Newton's work or Euclid is no more "significant" solely to those ho find use in it professionally than Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" is significant solely to professional musicians and aspiring rock-stars.

For Hendrix, there was/is a market of avid "customers". Newton had a major impact on about all technology since more than 300 years: the "market" includes indirectly all users of trains, airplanes, automobiles,...

Discovery and creativity, sharing personal discoveries with others, minor or great, and appreciating others' discoveries and creations, it seems to me at least, are essential to what it means to be human and become a part of the past (and, hopefully, future) thousands of years of human history.

Ah. The Place in History. That might be a drive. Remember my name. As I said, I would like to know what is the *real* drive behind the desire, the frustration of publishing in a scientific journal for a non-professional.

(it is not part of the Seven Principles of Vanesch Philosophy - an unpublished masterwork which could entirely overthrow all of humanities, but I keep it to myself )

 

[moe darklight]

That you can imagine yourself the equal of Da Vinci ?

well... quacks tend to actually believe that they are the next Da-Vinici . They are working under the assumption that their work is worthy of being published. I'm not saying it is: 99.99% of the time it probably isn't.

What I'm saying is: if there is a "next Einstein" out there somewhere, flipping burgers at a McDonalds-- why would his paper not be worthy of publishing? For every 1000000 quacks out there, it's plausible to think that there is a Ramanujan. Why is it not understandable that he would want to share his knowledge?

Is a musician trained at Juliard worth more than an "amateur" if the latter's compositions are just as beautiful?

I guess it depends on what your definition of "amateur" is. If by amateur you mean a hobbyist-- then no, of course his every half-baked musing has no place in a credible scientific journal. But if by amateur we include people who, for one reason or another, have not made a career out of whatever passion they have, but nonetheless are highly knowledgeable, then who's to say that they don't have anything worthwhile to put on the table?

So of course I'm not saying that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Everything in it's right place, regardless of where it came from.

Ah. The Place in History. That might be a drive. Remember my name.

I don't know if it was your intention, but you made this sound more sinister than it really is.

For example, I'm currently in university majoring in Literature and Creative Writing (well, monday I have an appointment with the dean because I'm switching to Physics and Creative Writing). My aim is to be an author and write for a living. Do I love the idea of someone eventually buying a book of mine and reading words I put on paper? of someone getting something out of that? of course. Would I love the idea of some day writing something that out-lives me? who wouldn't? -- I'm not working under the pretense of becoming the next Shakespeare here, but the idea of being a part, however big or small, of a tradition that extends back thousands of years, is very cool.

It's like joining a club. You are sharing a common experience ... maybe you should add that to your list of basic human needs: the desire to belong.
we are all driven by a desire to belong to "something" greater than ourselves: a family, a club, a tradition, a religion, etc. etc.

 

[Nereid]

according to the indisputable First Principle of Vanesch Philosophy, there are only two things that matter in life: pleasure and wealth

Hmm ...

But isn't wealth just a means to the end "pleasure"?

And if I may explore this a bit more ... there's another aspect that's important, IMHO, one that complicates things no end: avoidance, or minimisation, of pain.

For example, for whatever reason, or combo of reasons, having one's ideas published in a paper in a scientific journal may bring one great pleasure; but to get to that point, one may have to endure pain, over a long time. The pleasure-pain calculus is not simple.

Back to why one might want to have one's ideas published ...

Perhaps the publication is a mere bit player in an orchestra that delivers pleasure? A component which is mostly just a means to a (pleasurable) end?

What if you love/are obsessed about/{insert other words here} solving puzzles (or unravelling them, or analysing them, or attacking them, or ...)? That broad, general activity brings you great pleasure.

Now not all puzzles are created equal; for you the Sudoku in your local newspaper may pale in comparison to reducing the 1σ error bars on estimates of H₀ by 10%, say. If so, then publication is an important part of your puzzle solving, if only (also) because puzzle solving is better done in some sort of collective fashion, within a framework that you believe works reasonably efficiently (nothing worse than solving puzzles in what you think are grossly inefficient ways; life is too short, and the interesting puzzles too many for that).

 

[Nereid]

well... quacks tend to actually believe that they are the next Da-Vinici . They are working under the assumption that their work is worthy of being published. I'm not saying it is: 99.99% of the time it probably isn't.

And here's one fascinating question: how can the 0.00001% of works (I'm rather less optimistic than you it seems) that are worthy of being published be discovered ?

And to make the matter personal: how much of your time or wealth would you be willing to give up to take part in any such process of discovery? Especially given the extremely long odds on you playing an important part in any such discovery.

What I'm saying is: if there is a "next Einstein" out there somewhere, flipping burgers at a McDonalds-- why would his paper not be worthy of publishing? For every 1000000 quacks out there, it's plausible to think that there is a Ramanujan. Why is it not understandable that he would want to share his knowledge?

Excellent example!

Forget publication; for Ramanujan and his math, surely the more important thing was to belong to a community of people interested in discussing the parts of math that fascinated him? In being part of a shared effort to solve (certain) puzzles?

Is a musician trained at Juliard worth more than an "amateur" if the latter's compositions are just as beautiful?

I guess it depends on what your definition of "amateur" is. If by amateur you mean a hobbyist-- then no, of course his every half-baked musing has no place in a credible scientific journal. But if by amateur we include people who, for one reason or another, have not made a career out of whatever passion they have, but nonetheless are highly knowledgeable, then who's to say that they don't have anything worthwhile to put on the table?

But doesn't that just push the question back one step?

How is it decided, and by whom, that what an amateur has to put on the table is worthwhile?

So of course I'm not saying that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Everything in it's right place, regardless of where it came from.



I don't know if it was your intention, but you made this sound more sinister than it really is.

For example, I'm currently in university majoring in Literature and Creative Writing (well, monday I have an appointment with the dean because I'm switching to Physics and Creative Writing). My aim is to be an author and write for a living. Do I love the idea of someone eventually buying a book of mine and reading words I put on paper? of someone getting something out of that? of course. Would I love the idea of some day writing something that out-lives me? who wouldn't? -- I'm not working under the pretense of becoming the next Shakespeare here, but the idea of being a part, however big or small, of a tradition that extends back thousands of years, is very cool.

It's like joining a club. You are sharing a common experience ... maybe you should add that to your list of basic human needs: the desire to belong.
we are all driven by a desire to belong to "something" greater than ourselves: a family, a club, a tradition, a religion, etc. etc.

Yeah, and what is common for scientists (and mathematicians?)? Puzzles.

 

[vanesch]

They are working under the assumption that their work is worthy of being published.

This is one of the possible drives: the idea that material published in a science journal gives "value" or "status" or "merit" to it. If you didn't publish it, if you didn't get it published, it means maybe that you have a lower opinion of your work. But that is then by the misconception that publication in a journal is assigning 'value' to the work. Surely, if it gets published, it isn't at least totally worthless. But the gauge of "value" used by a journal is "do my readers value it". Now, the "readers" are the academic establishment. So if you can't get your local university professor interested in your material, he's the target public of the journal. So the circle is closed: if professional scientists don't value your contribution, then a journal that takes as its gauge, their value estimation, won't value it either. That's what peer review does, actually. An improvement could be to require that peer review is double blind, and that the reviewers don't know the authors of the paper or their affiliation. But given that the affiliation is part of the value estimation by the readers, that wouldn't be a good policy for the journal.

So the frustration from the amateur-who-didn't-get-published is that he thinks that his own material is "worth more" than much material in the journal, and nevertheless, his stuff can't get in it. Point is, "worth more" is seen through two different scales. The journal sees it through the scale "interest and appreciation of its readership" while the amateur sees it as "interest for Science".

What I'm saying is: if there is a "next Einstein" out there somewhere, flipping burgers at a McDonalds-- why would his paper not be worthy of publishing?

If your Einstein wants to keep flipping burgers (we started from the hypothesis that our amateur has no material or career interests) all right, then he shouldn't worry about the "worth" of his paper. The journal measures it in terms of its readership, not in terms of its interest for science or humanity. Its readership is the professor that hung up the phone last week.

For every 1000000 quacks out there, it's plausible to think that there is a Ramanujan. Why is it not understandable that he would want to share his knowledge?

Well, we're back to case 1: yes, indeed, why would a happy, burger-flipping Ramanujan who doesn't want to integrate academia, want to share his knowledge, and why would he insist of doing that through academic journals only (and not through a free website sponsored by Burger King) ?

Is a musician trained at Juliard worth more than an "amateur" if the latter's compositions are just as beautiful?

Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder, and that's exactly what happens here. The journals don't find your theory "beautiful" (because they sampled their users - through peer review - which don't like it), that's it.

But if by amateur we include people who, for one reason or another, have not made a career out of whatever passion they have, but nonetheless are highly knowledgeable, then who's to say that they don't have anything worthwhile to put on the table?

But of course they may have something extremely worthwhile to put on the table, but what makes that they WANT absolutely to get it in a journal ? IF they send it to a journal, and the journal accepts it, fine. But if the journal's conclusion is that its readership probably don't want to read it, what's wrong with that ?

It is the problem of every businessman and inventor: how to bring your offer to the customer ? If you ask the customer, and he doesn't want it, then so be it.

I don't know if it was your intention, but you made this sound more sinister than it really is.

It made me think of the Pharaohs, who thought that they would live in the afterlife as long as anyone remembered their name...

My aim is to be an author and write for a living. Do I love the idea of someone eventually buying a book of mine and reading words I put on paper? of someone getting something out of that? of course.

Sure, I understand you (I have a book in review with a publisher right now - absolutely not sure that it will get accepted)

Would I love the idea of some day writing something that out-lives me? who wouldn't? -- I'm not working under the pretense of becoming the next Shakespeare here, but the idea of being a part, however big or small, of a tradition that extends back thousands of years, is very cool.

Mmm, if I could sell my book for the 5 next years, I'd be happy - if on top of that, it could pay me a superduper computer and so on, that would even be better
I'm probably not as ambitious as you are

It's like joining a club. You are sharing a common experience ... maybe you should add that to your list of basic human needs: the desire to belong.
we are all driven by a desire to belong to "something" greater than ourselves: a family, a club, a tradition, a religion, etc. etc.

Yes, that's understandable. But as Nereid said, with the internet today, that's perfectly possible. Why insist on having it in a journal that is addressed to people who don't want to see your stuff in the first place ? There must be a reason, and I wonder which one it is.

 

[moe darklight]

Forget publication; for Ramanujan and his math, surely the more important thing was to belong to a community of people interested in discussing the parts of math that fascinated him? In being part of a shared effort to solve (certain) puzzles?

Yes, well, usually life is about the journey. Nobody can say "all I want to achieve is __," because as soon as you get there, you realize that it was only a step up a ladder, and you want to make the next step... or if it truly was all you wanted, then I guess you just lie down and wait for death.

To me it all falls back to being a part of something. By getting published, the person now belongs to "club {scientist}," just like I belong to "club {aspiring author}." I've only been published in small independent magazines, and this gives me experience to create a portfolio and be accepted into a creative writing program, where I can sit around a table with other aspiring authors and share that common experience.

Of course, my primary goal in life isn't to take creative writing or sit around a table with other people who are taking creative writing, it's just the "club" I belong to at this point. Some of us will move on to "club {author}," some even "club {best-seller}" or "club {great author}" ... most of us won't. most will move on to "club {frustrated aspiring author}" or "club {I used to want to be an author but then reality set in and now I'm an accountant}"

It's like, why did 1 million people stand outside in the cold two days ago to be there when Obama was sworn in? -- because, even if they were not the center of that significant moment in history, they were driven by that desire to belong. now they all belong to club {first black president} ... even if people know that they will play but a minimal roll in history, they are still driven by that desire to be a part of something.

I guess I'm not sure what my point is anymore, but it's something along those lines sorry for going off on a tangent there haha

 

[vanesch]

Hmm ...

But isn't wealth just a means to the end "pleasure"?

And if I may explore this a bit more ... there's another aspect that's important, IMHO, one that complicates things no end: avoidance, or minimisation, of pain

(that was the Second Principle... )

What if you love/are obsessed about/{insert other words here} solving puzzles (or unravelling them, or analysing them, or attacking them, or ...)? That broad, general activity brings you great pleasure.

Now not all puzzles are created equal; for you the Sudoku in your local newspaper may pale in comparison to reducing the 1σ error bars on estimates of H₀ by 10%, say. If so, then publication is an important part of your puzzle solving, if only (also) because puzzle solving is better done in some sort of collective fashion, within a framework that you believe works reasonably efficiently (nothing worse than solving puzzles in what you think are grossly inefficient ways; life is too short, and the interesting puzzles too many for that).

Ok, but that means that your success in collectively solving the puzzle resides essentially in you being an integral part in an ongoing endeavor. So your measure of success resides in how much you are capable of integrating a collective effort and in how much your contribution "matches in" with the currently estimated important activities in a particular field. Well, that's actually nothing else than measuring in how much you, as a professional, would integrate profitably the current working environment. But that means that you have to do something which is totally in line with what's being done, and what people are interested in. If you really have a good contribution in that sense then I'm not only pretty sure you'll get published, I'd rather say that if you do that, you will probably not have much problems collaborating with any or other research group or professor or whatever: cheap (free!) extra labor is always welcome! Only 1) most of that stuff is pretty boring 2) in order to even know what is fashionable at the moment, you have to be in the field like a professional 3) this is at the opposite end of most if not all "amateur" contributions, who are rather in opposition with the latest fashionable idea.

 

[turbo]

If you have a good idea, and develop it, you can get published even if the author(s) have no affiliation with a college, research program, etc. It's not that hard to do.

Note that using the "Einstein" model implies that the research work will be not only ground-breaking, but will address fundamental concepts that have far-reaching consequences for existing models. Any such papers would receive far more scrutiny than normal, and it is highly unlikely that any author outside of prominent research programs or academia would even get a foot in the door.

 

[moe darklight]

And here's one fascinating question: how can the 0.00001% of works (I'm rather less optimistic than you it seems) that are worthy of being published be discovered ?

And to make the matter personal: how much of your time or wealth would you be willing to give up to take part in any such process of discovery? Especially given the extremely long odds on you playing an important part in any such discovery.

not much

I agree. The odds are not good, and it would be pretty stupid for a physicist to sit around reading mountains of crap in the hopes of finding the next unsuspected breakthrough. There must be some sort of filter, and professional affiliations is one.

People are drawn to the underdog story: the romantic idea that the next great genius is "somewhere out there" and he will turn the world of science and reality as we know it on its head. People read these stories, and watch movies based on this, and some delusional individuals come to believe that "hey! I'm a janitor just like that guy from goodwill hunting! I bet I'm a genius too! boy, them learned university folk don't know what's coming once I send them my paper proving all matter is actually made out of tiny unicorns."

So for the most part, I agree. I was just pointing out that I don't see science as a significant endeavor solely from a utilitarian aspect, and why someone would be driven to want to be published -- I wasn't saying that it's necessarily a productive way to spend one's time to go looking for that exception when there are thousands of perfectly capable professionals.

 

[turbo]

I was just pointing out that I don't see science as a significant endeavor solely from a utilitarian aspect, and why someone would be driven to want to be published -- I wasn't saying that it's necessarily a productive way to spend one's time to go looking for that exception when there are thousands of perfectly capable professionals.

Sometimes, you have to do research just to see what turns up. It's a matter of curiosity. When something does turn up that is either unexpected or poorly-addressed in the literature, why not publish it? As long as your work is repeatable, rigorous, and original, it will get published. And you would be surprised how many very basic and fruitful lines of inquiry have been neglected despite the "thousands of perfectly capable professionals" in the field. If the work is tedious, grinding, or perhaps just not "glamorous" enough to attract funding, it will not get done by the pros.

 

[wolram]

If one wants to be pesermistic, astrophysics died when C was found to be a limit to travel times, or at least usless to us humans.

 

[Nereid]

[...]

What if you love/are obsessed about/{insert other words here} solving puzzles (or unravelling them, or analysing them, or attacking them, or ...)? That broad, general activity brings you great pleasure.

Now not all puzzles are created equal; for you the Sudoku in your local newspaper may pale in comparison to reducing the 1σ error bars on estimates of H0 by 10%, say. If so, then publication is an important part of your puzzle solving, if only (also) because puzzle solving is better done in some sort of collective fashion, within a framework that you believe works reasonably efficiently (nothing worse than solving puzzles in what you think are grossly inefficient ways; life is too short, and the interesting puzzles too many for that).

Ok, but that means that your success in collectively solving the puzzle resides essentially in you being an integral part in an ongoing endeavor. So your measure of success resides in how much you are capable of integrating a collective effort and in how much your contribution "matches in" with the currently estimated important activities in a particular field. Well, that's actually nothing else than measuring in how much you, as a professional, would integrate profitably the current working environment. But that means that you have to do something which is totally in line with what's being done, and what people are interested in. If you really have a good contribution in that sense then I'm not only pretty sure you'll get published, I'd rather say that if you do that, you will probably not have much problems collaborating with any or other research group or professor or whatever: cheap (free!) extra labor is always welcome! Only 1) most of that stuff is pretty boring 2) in order to even know what is fashionable at the moment, you have to be in the field like a professional 3) this is at the opposite end of most if not all "amateur" contributions, who are rather in opposition with the latest fashionable idea.

This is worth exploring a bit.

I'll use examples from astronomy, because I'm most familiar with that field.

http://www.aavso.org/" (American Association of Variable Star Observers, though it's an international organisation) has lots and lots of members, many of the very, very active. All but a handful are amateurs (there are a few salaried positions within AAVSO itself).

Professionals collaborate with them all the time, on specific projects as well as generally. Many papers have been published, not all with professionals as lead author, or even with a professional as author at all.

With some slight extensions or edits, I think we can apply vanesch's description to these folk; and we can also ask why it is that those AAVSO members who have published did so ... it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Which leads to this: if you're a non-professional, and you have something you want published about variable stars, there's a well-established organisation that is about as close to being tailor-made for your desires as you could possibly hope for*!

(more later, including a quick look at "Citizen Science")

* unless, perhaps you are using 'variable stars' as a cloak for a paper on, say, "why Einsteen woz rong"!

 

[LowlyPion]

Isn't the real issue that if Einstein could publish ... what would he publish today? Would he even have anything to publish?

Are we to suppose that E = mc² would still be hanging around to be determined?

What's to say that he wouldn't be living a life of contented mediocrity in the different circumstances of today's world?

 

[Evo]

All of this talk about Einstein, but no one has mentioned the fact that Einstein had a degree in Theoretical Physics and received his PhD in 1905, the same year he published his first paper. Someone without an education, or working on something completely outside of their formal education, bringing up Einstein as a comparison is rather silly.

 

[vanesch]

With some slight extensions or edits, I think we can apply vanesch's description to these folk; and we can also ask why it is that those AAVSO members who have published did so ... it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

People shouldn't get me wrong, I didn't say that it is meaningless to publish. I would say that if you have something you think is worth publishing, that you did on your own, and that you might think could give you some rewards (even only on the human level) by getting it published, then publishing it is part of the pleasure.

The point is, if no journal WANTS your stuff, that means then that your material is visibly *not* interesting the public the journal addresses, why would you insist ? Ok, you can be sad that a certain pleasure you were hoping for (the joy of getting kudos ?) didn't turn out to be present.

 

[Nereid]

Isn't the real issue that if Einstein could publish ... what would he publish today? Would he even have anything to publish?

Are we to suppose that E = mc² would still be hanging around to be determined?

What's to say that he wouldn't be living a life of contented mediocrity in the different circumstances of today's world?

"Could Einstein publish today?" is certainly the title of this thread.

However, in the OP I said this:

The general topic I'd like to discuss is the extent to which someone "outside" the mainstream could get paradigm-changing, comparable-to-General-Relativity (or Darwin's theory of evolution, or ...) ideas published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

and, after some development, I asked this:

Which brings me to the thing I'm most interested in discussing: whence comes this apparently persistent myth that revolutionary ideas in physics would be difficult to get published, in relevant peer-reviewed journals? Why do many apparently smart and well-educated people feel this way?

I think it's been pretty well established that should any outsider develop an idea in the same class as Einstein's, they'd have no difficulty worth speaking of to get it published (usual caveats apply). Further, while it would likely require such a person to invest some time and effort in 'marketing' (shall we say), the chances are that it'd be published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal before too long.

(well, at least no one has made a strong case to the contrary yet).

To date, there's been relatively little discussion of why the myth that, contrariwise, 'on a par with Einstein's best' ideas would be enormously difficult to get published (in ...) seems so persistent.

 

[chronon]

I think it's been pretty well established that should any outsider develop an idea in the same class as Einstein's, they'd have no difficulty worth speaking of to get it published (usual caveats apply). Further, while it would likely require such a person to invest some time and effort in 'marketing' (shall we say), the chances are that it'd be published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal before too long.

You seem to expect that such a work will announce itself to the world as the bringer of a total revolution in physics. Such an announcement would of course set off everyone's crackpot defenses. But what Einstein was doing was to address a small, somewhat philosophical, inconsistency between electromagnetism and mechanics. Isn't it possible that a journal could have seen his work as an interesting academic exercise, but not worth publishing.

 

[Nereid]

All of this talk about Einstein, but no one has mentioned the fact that Einstein had a degree in Theoretical Physics and received his PhD in 1905, the same year he published his first paper. Someone without an education, or working on something completely outside of their formal education, bringing up Einstein as a comparison is rather silly.

Hear, hear.

And this is one place where the difference between maths and physics might show ... to make a substantial, new, contribution in physics* requires a great deal of familiarity with much of modern physics. While it is certainly possible to become sufficiently familiar without a formal degree (a PhD or a very good MSc), through self-study for example, the understanding of modern physics you'd gain would be more than enough to equip you to write a paper that would be at least worth the time of professional to review. As I understand it, it's somewhat different in mathematics.

* except, perhaps, parts of physics that almost entirely theoretical, string theory say.

 

[chronon]

All of this talk about Einstein, but no one has mentioned the fact that Einstein had a degree in Theoretical Physics and received his PhD in 1905, the same year he published his first paper. Someone without an education, or working on something completely outside of their formal education, bringing up Einstein as a comparison is rather silly.

Hear, hear.

I thought Evo's post was a total non sequitur. Who is it that doesn't have an education? The post seems to be saying that we shouldn't compare the example given in this thread, i.e. Einstein, with Einstein.

 

[heldervelez]

Publishing Against the Tide

Some transcriptions about the difficulties in publishing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review"
Criticisms of peer review
..it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print. In practice, much of the communication about new results in some fields such as astronomy no longer takes place through peer-reviewed papers, but rather through preprints submitted onto electronic servers such as arXiv.org. However, such preprints are often also submitted to refereed journals, and in many cases have, at the time of electronic submission, already passed through the peer review process and been accepted for publication.
...
Allegations of bias and suppression
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[10] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[11][12][13] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[14]
...
For example, Albert Einstein's revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were not peer-reviewed by anyone other than the journal's editor in chief, Max Planck (the father of quantum theory), and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien. Although clearly peers (both won Nobel prizes in physics), a formal panel of reviewers was not sought, as is done for many scientific journals today. Established authors and editors were given more latitude in their journalistic discretion, back then. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that "in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."[28]

Max Planck Nobel in 1918 and Wien Nobel in 1911.

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/08againsttide.pdf"
A Critical Review by Scientists of
How Physics and Astronomy Get Done
Martín López Corredoira &
Carlos Castro Perelman (Eds.)
188 pages (Free distribution of the electronic copy of this book is allowed.)

It is all about the difficulties in publishing 'Against the tide'
Abstract
There are many well-qualified scientists who question long-established physics theories even when paradigms are not in crisis. Challenging scientific orthodoxy is difficult because most scientists are educated and work within current paradigms and have little career incentive to examine unconventional ideas. Dissidence is a strategic site for learning about the dynamics of science. Dozens of well-qualified scientists who challenge dominant physics paradigms were contacted to determine how they try to overcome resistance to their ideas. Some such challengers obtain funding in the usual ways; others tap unconventional sources or use their own funds. For publishing, many challengers use alternative journals and attend conferences dedicated to alternative viewpoints; publishing on the web is of special importance. Only a few physics dissidents come under attack, probably because they have not achieved enough prominence to be seen as a threat. Physics could benefit from greater openness to challenges; one way to promote this is to expose students to unconventional views.

quote pag 98
why the axiom “extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary proofs” is harmful to scientific advancement:
since the extraordinary hypotheses are, by selection effect, necessarily those we least suspect to be true, it
follows that they are the ones with the least surviving evidence4. We shall be condemned never to discover
the most extraordinary truths unless we are prepared to make exceptions to the rigorous application of the
“extraordinary proofs” criterion.
end-quote

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/04jsesh.html" describe the whole process and the reviewers answers also.

quoting from an open access publishing site :
http://www.philica.com/tutorial.php"
"What’s the problem with academic publishing?
is full of serious problems—
* Unnecessarily lengthy review periods
* Papers rejected for trivial reasons
* Reviewers not reading work properly owing to time pressures
* Publication blocked because a reviewer is working on something similar
* Reviewers reacting unprofessionally to criticism of their work
* Tendency for reviewers to be established authors, with subsequent bias against novel ideas and methodologies
* Good reviews, followed by, “However, I’m not sure it is right for this journal — why not submit to X instead?”
...
—and even if your paper is eventually accepted, the long lag between acceptance and publishing means someone else might beat you to publication, perhaps just because they were luckier with the reviewers they happened to get.

If not immediately accepted, recasting a paper in light of reviews can put the authors in a difficult position. Disagreeing with a reviewer, no matter that they might be wrong in what they said, probably means that the work will not get published. Altering the work may mean a compromise of opinion or standards.

The option to send to a different journal more often than not means a full or partial rewrite and a significant edit to ensure adherence to the house style of the target periodical. This means more time, and more compromise. The review process begins all over again.

The process may take a month, or it may take years. One unfavourable review can be the difference between publishing and not publishing, and the ideas — often strong, thought-provoking ideas — contained in these papers are all too often relegated to the filing cabinet...
"
end-quote

 

[Ian_Brooks]

This is quite intriguing

Does formal educational backing prevent an amateur researcher from having his work recognized?

The only credible example, albeit not an extreme one, that I can think of is a Ted talk by a biologist who discovered a revolutionary idea in chemical properties of fragrances.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/luca_turin_on_the_science_of_scent.html

Its an incredibly interesting video and worth watching if you have 20mins to spare.

I believe if the researcher took the time and effort to seek out venues to show his work to a credible but open audience, then it may be possible. What venues these would be - I can't say really.

Talks at university's, forum discussion, discussion with peers that may have links to some academic publishing journals are a few ideas.

Other factors have to be considered, such as
i) ease of accessibility of the information
- such as is the article referenced by a popular journal
- is it in english
- if one were looking for information in that area could they easily come across the revolutionary idea proposed?
ii) How willing the academic community, or some of their members are willing to accept the idea.

 

[zoobyshoe]

For publishing, many challengers use alternative journals and attend conferences dedicated to alternative viewpoints; publishing on the web is of special importance. Only a few physics dissidents come under attack, probably because they have not achieved enough prominence to be seen as a threat. Physics could benefit from greater openness to challenges; one way to promote this is to expose students to unconventional views.

I happened to be re-reading Gleik's Chaos yesterday and was reminded of the case of Feigenbaum:

"Years later Feigenbaum still kept in a desk drawer, where he could get at them quickly, his rejection letters. By then he had all the recognition he needed. His Los Alamos work had won him prizes and awards that brought prestige and money. But it still rankled that editors of the top academic journals had deemed his work unfit for publication for two years after he had began submitting it.The notion of a scientific breakthrough so original and unexpected that it cannot be published seems a slightly tarnished myth. Modern science, with its vast flow of information and its impartial system of peer review, is not supposed to be a matter of taste. One editor who sent back a Feigenbaum manuscript recognised years later that he had rejected a paper that was a turning point for the field..."

Feigenbaum's eventual recognition had come, not from publication but as a result of his own legwork:

"The kernel of the theory was disseminated the way most science is now disseminated-through lectures and preprints. Feigenbaum described his work at conferences, and requests for photocopies of his papers came in by the scores and then by the hundred."

Chaos, pp180-181

Those last two sentences, especially, written by Gleik way back in 1987, amount to an assertion that direct approach to peer reviewed journals has been understood for quite some time to be a dead end for new ideas, and that "most science" is now disseminated by circumventing those journals.