The discussion centers on the distinction between posting and publishing academic work, emphasizing the importance of validation through reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Participants argue that while posting theories online may spread ideas, it lacks the credibility and permanence of published work. Publishing ensures that research is archived, recognized, and cited, providing a level of validation unattainable through informal online postings. The conversation highlights the risks of predatory journals and the necessity of honest peer reviews in the academic publishing process.
PREREQUISITESAcademics, researchers, and students interested in understanding the significance of publishing in peer-reviewed journals versus informal online postings, as well as those seeking to enhance the credibility of their work.
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.