The discussion revolves around the benefits and drawbacks of publishing academic work versus simply posting it online, particularly for individuals not pursuing a career or advanced degrees. It explores themes of validation, visibility, and the permanence of published work compared to informal online postings.
Participants express differing views on the value of publishing versus posting, with no consensus reached on which method is superior for spreading ideas or achieving recognition.
Participants highlight the issue of validation and the potential for both published and posted work to become overlooked, indicating a shared concern about visibility and impact.
mcjosep said:If a person is in no need to publish anything for a career or to get their PHD then what is the benefit to publishing work vs just posting it on the internet if all you are trying to do is spread a theory/concept?
Validation. Posting on the internet gets you ZERO validation. Only publishing in a mainstream, approved, peer reviewed journal counts. Don't be fooled by predatory journals that will publish any garbage if you pay them.mcjosep said:If a person is in no need to publish anything for a career or to get their PHD then what is the benefit to publishing work vs just posting it on the internet if all you are trying to do is spread a theory/concept?
mcjosep said:I suppose, it just seems there should be a better way to do it. To have honest peer reviews is a valuable thing.
Per ZapperZ's comment though, I feel like a published article could slip into oblivion just as easily.