Physics How to close the gap: From Independent Research to Academic Discourse

[Esim Can]

Hello Physics Forums Community,
I'm hoping to draw upon the community's collective wisdom regarding a procedural challenge that I believe many independent researchers face.

I'm working on a self-contained theoretical framework from a foundational starting point. The work touches upon concepts from general relativity, quantum foundations, and cosmology, attempting to connect them based on a single relational principle. It has now reached a point, where some parameter free values seemingly emerge out of it, reaching the limits of my capability. At this point, as someone working outside the formal academic structure, the path forward is unclear.

I will NOT post details on the model in this forum, because i respect of course, that this place is not the right place for such things. So my questions are more about the process, what to do next.

I ask myself now, what are the most viable pathways for an independent researcher to bring a comprehensive body of work to the attention of the academic community? Is a preprint server like arXiv a recommended first step? I'm aware of the endorsement process, which can be a hurdle. Or; What is the most respectful and appropriate way to initiate contact with an academic professional for feedback, without it being an unwelcome imposition?

I post these questions here, hoping that perhaps other people may have been in such a situation before or, perhaps are facing similar challenges right now.

I would be very grateful for any advice, experiences, or potential strategies the community could share.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Greetings,

Esim Can

 

[berkeman]

Do you have any local universities with professors or graduate students who are working on the same thing? If so, you can consider paying them for several hours of consulting to discuss your work and get feedback. You will want to have some kind of Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in place before discussing your work in detail.

 

[Dale]

I would simply submit your research to a journal. Usually a good indication of which journal to submit to is the journal that was the source for most of your research. Although you surely studied hundreds of papers in a dozen journals, focus on the journal that you returned to most frequently.

 

[WWGD]

Do you have any local universities with professors or graduate students who are working on the same thing? If so, you can consider paying them for several hours of consulting to discuss your work and get feedback. You will want to have some kind of Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in place before discussing your work in detail.

If you contact and address politely a prof whose work/research overlaps with your issue and make sure you know what you're talking about and ask clear and specific questions, so that you don't waste their time, they may exchange emails with you for free. It happened with me. If you need more of his time and effort, you may go the Berkeman route.

 

[Esim Can]

First: Thank you all very much for these very helpful ideas.

@berkeman
Thank you for your very practical perspective from an economic point of view. Very interesting, as i do this work from a very different place of mindset. Always refreshing to not forget the economic point of view.

@Dale
In a way perhaps a very good idea, you came up with. To be not desk-rejected by a journal as an outsider with an idea, some has to have a bit lucky of course. But even if it then goes to peer-review process, it takes months or a year to go through this process. If then rejected after a year,.. wow, i think my psyche would not survive this. LOL! But in principle a very good way of trying.

@WWGD
Thank you, for sharing your experience. This makes me hope really and is like a small light at a distance. Although these people are very busy, at the end we all are just humans right? And even an outsider can have some good idea, some may never know.

In this topic i have to say, i have published and written before, but never in physics. And physics seems to have the most high hurdles to publish own work from outside of academia. I of course understand why this is, the world is full of people addicted to rule out Einstein or what so ever. But not all of independent researchers are like this, some are really trying their best to deliver something productive to the whole.

Thanks again and best wishes to the community.

Esim Can

 

[fresh_42]

And physics seems to have the most high hurdles to publish own work from outside of academia. I of course understand why this is, the world is full of people addicted to rule out Einstein or what so ever. But not all of independent researchers are like this, some are really trying their best to deliver something productive to the whole.

Your request is not about publishing. To publish something is easier than ever. What you really want is to be read. This means you require time from professional scientists. The productive timespan of scientists is somewhere between 20 and 30 years. This makes it extremely expensive. Publishing in a serious journal is one way of saying that your work is worth it, since you cannot address the entire physical community otherwise. However, this in turn requires the time of reviewers, which is again expensive, too, and in addition an unwelcome duty. There is no established path over such hurdles.

I have recently written down my opinion on independent research https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...side-the-box-versus-knowing-whats-in-the-box/ and specifically looked for events when independent research in physics actually might have happened. I couldn't find any. Maybe Archimedes. It is hard to tell if little else is known at the time. Maybe Galois in mathematics, but he didn't publish himself and died too young to determine what he knew.

 

[Dale]

To be not desk-rejected by a journal as an outsider with an idea, some has to have a bit lucky of course.

Desk rejections are not done because the paper comes from an “outsider”. They are usually done because the submitter did not follow the journal’s instructions for authors or because the paper doesn’t fit the journal. They are also often done because the style of the paper is not professional or because the content is already well understood. These last two occur more frequently for “outsiders”, but that is correlation not causation.

If then rejected after a year,.. wow, i think my psyche would not survive this

You will undoubtedly get rejected at first. I have over 100 published papers. Most of them were rejected by the first journal I submitted them to. The rest were only accepted with substantial revisions.

I think my first paper was rejected by two journals, before being accepted by the third. It is now the subject of a patent that is used every day on many patients to provide life-saving care. The rejections were not because the idea was poor, but because my paper was poor. As an outsider you can expect that your first paper will also be poor and will also be rejected.

In every case, both the rejections and the requests for revisions resulted in improvements to the paper. Peer review is a process that improves the papers, not an obstacle to cross. Peer review is useful, even when it leads to rejection.