Is a high school student allowed to submit his/her discovery to academia?

[l-1j-cho]

Of couse this is unlikely to happen to me but
I was just curious that,
If a high school student genious or child prodigy like Jacob Barnett
discovered a pattern of prime numbers,
is (s)he allowed to submit his/her work to academia?

 

[Pengwuino]

Sure, but whether or not they know how is a different story. They'd need to get in contact with a university professor to 1) make sure what they are submitting isn't garbage that will be associated with them for the rest of their life and 2) learn how to properly format and submit to academic journals and deal with the referees.

 

[l-1j-cho]

Can high school teachers also supervise their students' work too? I just read an anecdote about Abel. Apparently Abel submitted his theory to Fermant and Fermat didn't even look at it and threw it to a rubbish bin

 

[Pengwuino]

Can high school teachers also supervise their students' work too? I just read an anecdote about Abel. Apparently Abel submitted his theory to Fermant and Fermat didn't even look at it and threw it to a rubbish bin

Sure but it's unlikely the teacher knows enough to get a paper published or even enough to know if the paper is nonsense or not. Teachers typically only have a BS in physics (and may not even have formal training in physics!). They also are even less likely to be up to date on current research, which is what's actually important.

 

[l-1j-cho]

Sure but it's unlikely the teacher knows enough to get a paper published or even enough to know if the paper is nonsense or not. Teachers typically only have a BS in physics (and may not even have formal training in physics!). They also are even less likely to be up to date on current research, which is what's actually important.

oh my mathematics teacher has a masters degree and my physics teacher teaches at universities (I don't know why he doesn't want to be called as a doctor but I am pretty sure that he has a phD) So I wouldn't question their ability.

Thanks for the information.

 

[Pengwuino]

oh my mathematics teacher has a masters degree and my physics teacher teaches at universities (I don't know why he doesn't want to be called as a doctor but I am pretty sure that he has a phD) So I wouldn't question their ability.

Thanks for the information.

If he does have a PhD and he isn't like 60 years old and been out of the game for decades, he should be aware of how to publish things.

 

[l-1j-cho]

he's like 40s I guess.
By the way, if someone publishes his/her results, without knowing that a similar theory was already published before, is (s)he commiting plagiarism?

 

[l-1j-cho]

Can high school teachers also supervise their students' work too? I just read an anecdote about Abel. Apparently Abel submitted his theory to Fermant and Fermat didn't even look at it and threw it to a rubbish bin

it was Gauss, not Fermat
Epic Fail

 

[JaredJames]

By the way, if someone publishes his/her results, without knowing that a similar theory was already published before, is (s)he commiting plagiarism?

That's a tricky one, but it's where knowing the material comes in.

It will be checked and if it's already out there, it will be noted and won't go further.

The biggest problem you would face is with people not taking you seriously. When you do such work you are expected to have a good idea of current research and to display certain level of ability.

A high school student is highly unlikely to be able to produce either.

I'd expect the final publication, if it got that far, would be done in conjunction with other persons well versed in the subject.

 

[l-1j-cho]

The biggest problem you would face is with people not taking you seriously.

haha so true.

thanks for the advices!

 

[Jack21222]

I think I read a story about some high school kid who proved some mathematical theorem about 2 years back. I'll try to look that up when I have access to my computer (rather than just my phone.)

 

[Pengwuino]

he's like 40s I guess.
By the way, if someone publishes his/her results, without knowing that a similar theory was already published before, is (s)he commiting plagiarism?

Not really, plagiarism is the act of intentionally copying someone elses work without citing them or calling it your own work. What's pretty much standard in science today is citations. If you look at any piece of published research, they'll have cited sometimes dozens of other people and the paper is just them adding their own little bit to the mountain of research out there.

Oddly enough there have been instances in history where two people/groups discovered something independently and both published but the latter person/group received the historical credit. For example, I think it was Lorentz who first really had special relativity figured out, but he didn't apply any physical meaning (or maybe he had an incorrect meaning, I forget) to it but Einstein did so Einstein has always had the credit. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[l-1j-cho]

Oh I mean if someone deliberately copies someone else's work that is plagiarism indeed but, there are loads of papers out there and it is almost impossible to check every single paper whether it is duplicated or not

 

[Matterwave]

Lorentz formulated the Lorentz contraction (or sometimes called the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction...I don't know what Fitzgerald did though), but to him it was just a mathematical trick to make the physics work (kind of like Planck hypothesizing h). Poincare did some stuff on time-dilation I think. But really it was Einstein who brought all of these random concepts together and formulated one complete theory of Special Relativity. He formulated the Special theory axiomatically from 2 principles, and gave all these different phenomenons a physical reason. It is because of this that we call it "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", and not "Lorentz and Poincare's theory of relativity".

Interestingly, historically Poincare seemed to credit SR to Lorentz, but Lorentz credited it to Einstein. So, I'm not sure what you want to make of that haha.

 

[jtbell]

I think it was Lorentz who first really had special relativity figured out, but he didn't apply any physical meaning (or maybe he had an incorrect meaning, I forget) to it but Einstein did so Einstein has always had the credit.

Lorentz does get credit where he is due. The key mathematical statement of SR is known as the Lorentz transformation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

he's like 40s I guess.
By the way, if someone publishes his/her results, without knowing that a similar theory was already published before, is (s)he commiting plagiarism?

At a minimum, it's incredibly shoddy scholarship.

 

[AlephZero]

Oh I mean if someone deliberately copies someone else's work that is plagiarism indeed but, there are loads of papers out there and it is almost impossible to check every single paper whether it is duplicated or not

There are specialised search engines for academic research, that look at all published papers in reputable journals rather than the whole of the internet.

As well as that, the people who do the peer reviews of your paper before it is published in a journal will be scientists working in the same field, and they mgiht know about any similar work that was going on even if it had not yet been published. They might recommend that you publish one joint paper, rather than two similar ones.

 

[l-1j-cho]

At a minimum, it's incredibly shoddy scholarship.

Although it was completely unintended?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes. Scholarship means it's your responsibility to find out.

I think you really need to recognize that this fantasy of yours is just that, a fantasy. Making a major contribution without the hard work that professional scientists have put in is like expecting to be called from your little league team to the major leagues - again, without the intervening hard work.

 

[l-1j-cho]

I was just curious when I read story about those mathematicians like Abel or Galois. Again, repeatedely, it is not my story.

 

[russ_watters]

[Response was to previous post]You misunderstand: any good research paper - on anything - must include discussion of the existing state of knowledge on the subject. If you don't even have a grasp of that, what would lead anyone to believe you can extend that state of knowledge?

You won't have much luck getting people to read past the intro of your paper if it looks like you don't know the subject matter.