What's the Process for Publishing Scientific Papers?

[John37309]

Does anyone know what's the story with publishing scientific papers? Whats the process involved in publishing a science paper?

I read scientific papers all the time. I read a lot of papers on this arXiv.org website. But it seems you need someone to authorize you before you can upload papers to the website. I don't come from an academic background, I'm self-taught in the sciences. I don't have anyone to authorize me.

These are my questions;

1. If someone has authorized you, and you upload your paper to the arXiv.org website, is the paper considered to be "published" then simply because its sitting openly on that pre-print server for everyone to read?

2. Would you separately "apply" to the appropriate Journal to then "publish" your paper, maybe offering them the link to your paper that is now sitting openly on the arXiv.org website?

3. What about peer review? On the arXiv website, does your paper become public before peer review? Or does peer review happen when you apply to the appropriate Journal, then your paper is peer reviewed and accepted or rejected?

4. Cost or publishing? I inquired with one reputable journal about publishing scientific papers, but the cost runs into hundreds of US dollars. Who pays for scientific papers to be published? Universities and scientific institutions, is it? What if you just want to publish a paper and your doing it off your own steam?

5. What about viXra.org? Does this website have any credibility? Does anyone pay any attention to the scientific papers uploaded there? And if i just uploaded a scientific paper to viXra, is that the end of the story? Is that paper then "published"?

Be gentle with me, I'm new to publishing.
Thanks,
John.

 

[Dale]

Each journal will have its own rules and procedures. Go to the journal home page and look for the "instructions to authors", or if you have a print copy the instructions to authors are usually at the very front or very back of each issue. Although each journal is different, the usual process is basically to format your paper as required, register on the website as an author, and upload it. Then they will send it for peer review, and respond with a list of comments from the reviewers. Even if you are rejected from that journal, consider the reviewer's suggestions before submitting to your second-preference journal.

Btw, to increase your success you may want to have your paper reviewed by a few people that you know personally who have experience publishing. The more eyes that can see a paper and critique it the stronger it will be.

 

[kloptok]

Snatched from arXiv.org:

"arXiv is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance and statistics. Submissions to arXiv must conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned and operated by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is funded by Cornell University Library and by supporting user institutions. The National Science Foundation funds research and development by Cornell Information Science."

The arXiv is not a journal in physics, it is an open library operated by Cornell University. As far as I understand, a journal uploaded on the arXiv is not seen as "published" in the ordinary sense of the word. From what I gather, the normal procedure is to first upload on arXiv and then (or simultaneously) submit to a journal. To get into the journal the paper is then peer-reviewed (but it does not have to be to be uploaded onto arXiv.org).

That's as far as I understood at least, more experienced people are free to correct me if I am mistaken.

Also, you'll find probably all info you need about the arXiv on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv"

 

[Pengwuino]

1. If someone has authorized you, and you upload your paper to the arXiv.org website, is the paper considered to be "published" then simply because its sitting openly on that pre-print server for everyone to read?

No. "Published" specifically means in a scientific journal. ArXiv is where people post papers that are currently in the (often long and tedious) process of being peer-reviewed and submitted to journals. Anything put on ArXiv, for the most part, is assumed to be in the publication process.

2. Would you separately "apply" to the appropriate Journal to then "publish" your paper, maybe offering them the link to your paper that is now sitting openly on the arXiv.org website?

You will send them the paper according to their specifications so that they can begin the peer-review process. Also, keep in mind they can reject your paper for a number of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the quality of your work. For example, a journal on gravitation won't accept condensed matter papers. Another example is that some journals, such as Science, might see a paper as good and proper science, but they may only want what they consider the most ground-breaking articles at the time.

3. What about peer review? On the arXiv website, does your paper become public before peer review? Or does peer review happen when you apply to the appropriate Journal, then your paper is peer reviewed and accepted or rejected?

It happens when you send it to the journal. You must have a .edu address (I believe), so people are free to write you with comments or questions, although that in of itself does not constitute official peer-review. When you post on the arxiv, it is immediate as far as I know. All it is saying is "here you go scientific community, I have something to say", nothing more.

4. Cost or publishing? I inquired with one reputable journal about publishing scientific papers, but the cost runs into hundreds of US dollars. Who pays for scientific papers to be published? Universities and scientific institutions, is it? What if you just want to publish a paper and your doing it off your own steam?

Yes, universities, institutions, grant monies, etc. The thing you want to do is talk to a professor at a university or a graduate student. They can help you determine if your theory is worth anything. The important thing, though, is that departments are probably very happy to put out some money for something they can somehow get their name attached to. What I suspect would happen is that the grad student or professor would make some contributions or help you tidy up the paper in exchange for being second author on the paper (maybe, I'm really not sure about this). You would stay first author, however, since it's your idea, and that's all that's important.

 

[John37309]

Thank you Pengwuino, kloptok, DaleSpam.
Some good advice here, i appreciate it.

This is my current line of thought;

I very close to completion of 5 years research, i have never shared any of my research with anyone. But I'm almost ready to publish.

Because i have never been through the academic system, i have a great fear of this publishing system. To such an extent, i am veering toward not even trying to publish into a proper journal. This is why I'm seriously considering this viXra.org website because it just seems simpler. I want my research to be public, but the whole system just seems complex and bureaucratic. Its like the academic community have made things difficult for ordinary inventors, researchers and scientists like me.

What about question 5;
5. What about viXra.org? Does this website have any credibility? Does anyone pay any attention to the scientific papers uploaded there?

Thank you,
John.

 

[Pengwuino]

Don't use vixra, it smells like crackpot. No one will read whatever you have to contribute if you put it there.

The complexity exists because you're really trying to reach a large audience (if you want to talk complexity, try to publish an ACTUAL BOOK). There are also a plethora of people who do research for 2 months with 0 physics education (and by that, I literally mean have not even cracked open a university level textbook) and think they are worthy of publication. These checks are in place to make sure the scientific community isn't flooded with people like that. People like that will think up a new theory every other day and think they're the next Einstein and demand the world see their true genius!

The thing to do is talk to a graduate student at a local university or a professor. If it truly is good research, they'll help you navigate the publishing process which is honestly not complex at all once you understand what's going on. It'll also lend you some credibility.

The absolute worse thing you can do, if you ever want to do any serious research, is get your name put on something that ends up being seriously flawed or garbage. In the end, researchers are humans with finite resources. If you publish something that's bad and in the future you continue to try to publish, other people will simply do a 5 second google search, see that you posted other crackpotish articles, and won't give your future articles the time of day.

 

[jtbell]

The arXiv is not a journal in physics, it is an open library operated by Cornell University. As far as I understand, a journal uploaded on the arXiv is not seen as "published" in the ordinary sense of the word. From what I gather, the normal procedure is to first upload on arXiv and then (or simultaneously) submit to a journal. To get into the journal the paper is then peer-reviewed (but it does not have to be to be uploaded onto arXiv.org).

Historical note: the arXiv replaced an earlier informal system in which researchers distributed (by snail mail) "preprints" of articles that they had submitted (or were about to submit) for formal publication. I described this in a post about two years ago:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2118507&postcount=10

 

[eri]

If you do manage to get your work on to arXiv (and since you don't have a .edu address, you'll need someone to endorse you, and since their name would show up as endorser, not many people would be willing to do that for you) people would probably read it. However, it would not count as published. If you want it to be published and taken seriously (and even cited) by scientists, you should submit it to a journal first.

But before you take that step, you should find someone in the field to talk to about your research. That's what all actual scientists do; we discuss our work with colleagues before letting just anyone read it. And don't just randomly email a ton of people. It would be best to talk to an expert in the field, but if you think the best expert would be Hawking, you're not going to get a reply. Try starting at a local college or university and going from there.

Even many scientists aren't confident enough about their own work, even after talking to other scientists, to post it to arXiv before it's been accepted to a journal for publication. It might require substantial revision, or it might have a major flaw. And then it would be out there for everyone to see and to drag down your career. So you're far better off discussing it with someone first.

 

[twofish-quant]

However, it would not count as published. If you want it to be published and taken seriously (and even cited) by scientists, you should submit it to a journal first.

Depends on the field. In astrophysics, everyone gets research information from arxiv.org because by the time it gets into a journal, it's too old. Also it's often the case that people will cite preprints. Getting your stuff into a journal is still required as "score-keeping" for academic positions.

But being published means nothing. It's being cited that's important.

 

[John37309]

Guys thank you, this is seriously some of the best advice. Ok, I'm starting to get an understanding about the viXra.org website. I can put my work up there for people to view, but you guys think that the website does lack credibility! Interesting! At the same time, i can't yet rule it out as an option. I will just keep it as a last resort.

I suppose like many scientists, i tend to work alone not telling anyone what I'm doing. But in this case, my scientific findings need to go public, other physicists need to know about my work. This is the bones of 5 years of research. So from reading your suggestions here guys, i should go out of my way and make an effort to contact the physics department in my local university. I kind of did this already in a half-hearted way, but i never followed it up.

No, you guys are right, i need to make the effort to do this properly through the proper channels in the academic system. Essentially i think i need a "collaborator" in my research to verify and review the research, and we can publish the scientific findings together. The work is too important so i need to collaborate with another physicist on this publication.

John.

 

[ZapperZ]

I suppose like many scientists, i tend to work alone not telling anyone what I'm doing.

Just out of curiosity, how are you a "scientist", yet you seem completely clueless on publishing? Even graduate students know about publishing before they become "scientists", since they have to publish their work before they graduate.

Zz.

 

[Pengwuino]

I suppose like many scientists, i tend to work alone not telling anyone what I'm doing. But in this case, my scientific findings need to go public, other physicists need to know about my work. This is the bones of 5 years of research. So from reading your suggestions here guys, i should go out of my way and make an effort to contact the physics department in my local university. I kind of did this already in a half-hearted way, but i never followed it up.

I don't know a single serious researcher who works alone (although maybe that's the point? haha). Everyone collaborates. I was quite shocked to find such a level of collaboration between scientists upon getting my feet wet in the serious aspects of physics research.

 

[John37309]

Just out of curiosity, how are you a "scientist", yet you seem completely clueless on publishing? Even graduate students know about publishing before they become "scientists", since they have to publish their work before they graduate.

Zz.

I suppose it very much depends on your definition of what a scientist is. Since i was a young child, i always carried out experiments to test and question how thinks work. Today this is second nature to me. So yes, i do consider myself to be a scientist. I carry out research using the scientific method through test and experiment. Many people today who call themselves scientists, rarely if ever carry out the experimental research to test their theories. I don't believe i need an academic degree to consider my work scientific.

John.

 

[ZapperZ]

I suppose it very much depends on your definition of what a scientist is. Since i was a young child, i always carried out experiments to test and question how thinks work. Today this is second nature to me. So yes, i do consider myself to be a scientist. I carry out research using the scientific method through test and experiment. Many people today who call themselves scientists, rarely if ever carry out the experimental research to test their theories. I don't believe i need an academic degree to consider my work scientific.

John.

Hum... OK, so using your logic, if I have successfully treated a few friends who were sick, and have done this for years and years, I can call myself a medical doctor?

Zz.

 

[John37309]

ZapperZ,
Some of the very greatest names in the history of science did not pass through the academic system. They did their work for the love of science and because they have a curious mind, like me.

Either way, i think all research is important, i don't care who did the research or if they had letters after their name. What is important is that science progresses forward driven by people with a passion for science. And no, if i have a bad pain in my back, and some quack suggests a cure that helps me, then I'm grateful for his scientific knowledge, regardless of his qualification. I will call the guy whatever he wants to be called as long as my back pain feels better.

John.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ,
Some of the very greatest names in the history of science did not pass through the academic system. They did their work for the love of science and because they have a curious mind, like me.

Either way, i think all research is important, i don't care who did the research or if they had letters after their name. What is important is that science progresses forward driven by people with a passion for science. And no, if i have a bad pain in my back, and some quack suggests a cure that helps me, then I'm grateful for his scientific knowledge, regardless of his qualification. I will call the guy whatever he wants to be called.

John.

Those 'some greatest names' came through a different academic system than what we have today. They WERE scientists by definition within the times they lived in.

Calling oneself a "scientist" or a "physician" carries a lot of responsibilities and connotations. It implies a certain level of knowledge and expertise. Passing oneself as a medical doctor without the qualification is not only wrong, it is also unlawful. Calling yourself a "scientist" without valid justification is misleading, and as inaccurate as anyone thinking he is a medical doctor just because he can make some diagnosis. Just because you THINK you do what scientists do doesn't mean you are a scientist, because a scientist just doesn't do "experiments".

Zz.

 

[John37309]

Those 'some greatest names' came through a different academic system than what we have today. They WERE scientists by definition within the times they lived in.

Calling oneself a "scientist" or a "physician" carries a lot of responsibilities and connotations. It implies a certain level of knowledge and expertise. Passing oneself as a medical doctor without the qualification is not only wrong, it is also unlawful. Calling yourself a "scientist" without valid justification is misleading, and as inaccurate as anyone thinking he is a medical doctor just because he can make some diagnosis. Just because you THINK you do what scientists do doesn't mean you are a scientist, because a scientist just doesn't do "experiments".

Zz.

Well then in your books I'm not a scientist then, is that fair enough my friend?

John.

 

[JaredJames]

Well then in your books I'm not a scientist then, is that fair enough my friend?

Out of curiosity, what area of research are you participating in? Are you intimately familiar with all current research in that area?

 

[John37309]

Out of curiosity, what area of research are you participating in? Are you intimately familiar with all current research in that area?

When i left school at 17, i trained as an electrician for 4 years. During that time i did night classes in electronic and electrical engineering. In the last 20 years i have done many courses in industrial electrical instrumentation and related topics. Most of my research is in physics and electrical engineering. But i cross many different disciplines.

John.

 

[JaredJames]

When i left school at 17, i trained as an electrician for 4 years. During that time i did night classes in electronic and electrical engineering. In the last 20 years i have done many courses in industrial electrical instrumentation and related topics. Most of my research is in physics and electrical engineering. But i cross many different disciplines.

Physics and electrical engineering are incredibly broad topics. Surely you have a specific segment you work to? Generally people don't just research "physics" (well, you can't - it's too big).

 

[Pengwuino]

I think he means what sub-field are you doing your research on within physics? Gravitation, HEP, CM, etc.

 

[JaredJames]

I think he means what sub-field are you doing your research on within physics? Gravitation, HEP, CM, etc.

Correct.

 

[ZapperZ]

There is this anecdote of a couple, newly wed, and the husband just got his PhD in electrical engineering. The wife, being so proud of him, included the title "Dr." in their airline reservation. Unfortunately, during the flight, a medical emergency occurred on one of the passengers. The flight crew will typically scan the passengers list and, you guessed it, called up the husband for assistance, thinking he was a medical doctor. Embarrassed, he had to explain to the flight crew that he isn't a medical doctor.

The titles that many of us have were NOT something we chose, or something we can simply adopt. They were AWARDED to us, either via a formal institution, or by our profession. You don't get to simply adopt that you are a scientist. OTHERS are the ones that will award you that title, and only then can you, with all the responsibilities that come with it, use that title.

Zz.

 

[John37309]

I questioned the validity of a piece of public scientific information a few years back because it did not match the results i was getting in my experiments. So i went and researched that specific piece of information. After several years researching the topic, i found a flaw in the information.

The flaw is NOT obvious. I was looking at this piece of information for a very long time and i did not see the flaw. And now that i have found the flaw, i understand why other scientists might easily miss the flaw.

I could patent the scientific information i have acquired from finding this flaw. But to be honest, I'm comfortable in life and i don't really care about chasing this for financial gain. I love science and i don't want to strangle the scientific community for the next 10 years with a patent. So i just want to publish my scientific finding where other people can benefit from the information freely and openly. I don't care if people think I'm a scientist or not. I just want to share the information so the greater scientific community can accelerate the research in this area of physics. So that why I'm asking you guys about publishing in the academic system.

I'm just an honest guy trying to do the best thing here.
John.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then don't pass yourself off as something you are not.

When you call yourself a "scientist", we, and the public, expect certain things. That's why I found it rather curious that you don't have a clue about scientific publishing. We expect such knowledge from a typical scientist, among other things.

This isn't a criticism of what you want to do. It is simply a heads-up piece of information that you need to be careful who you pass yourself as. Calling yourself a "scientist", especially on a science forum such as this, comes with a lot of responsibilities, many of which you are obviously not aware of.

Zz.

 

[JaredJames]

I questioned the validity of a piece of public scientific information a few years back because it did not match the results i was getting in my experiments. So i went and researched that specific piece of information. After several years researching the topic, i found a flaw in the information.

The flaw is NOT obvious. I was looking at this piece of information for a very long time and i did not see the flaw. And now that i have found the flaw, i understand why other scientists might easily miss the flaw.

I could patent the scientific information i have acquired from finding this flaw. But to be honest, I'm comfortable in life and i don't really care about chasing this for financial gain. I love science and i don't want to strangle the scientific community for the next 10 years with a patent. So i just want to publish my scientific finding where other people can benefit from the information freely and openly. I don't care if people think I'm a scientist or not. I just want to share the information so the greater scientific community can accelerate the research in this area of physics. So that why I'm asking you guys about publishing in the academic system.

I'm just an honest guy trying to do the best thing here.
John.

In which case, why not just publish it here in independent research?

As long as you meet the criteria, you should get it out there for people to read. You'll also get criticism if required and it will help you get it out there.

I must ask again, what area are you working in? Which area is this "flaw" located in?

I'd add to this, have you kept up with research in this area, specifically regarding that information you found flaw with to ensure it hasn't been discovered?

 

[John37309]

In which case, why not just publish it here in independent research?

As long as you meet the criteria, you should get it out there for people to read. You'll also get criticism if required and it will help you get it out there.

I must ask again, what area are you working in? Which area is this "flaw" located in?

I'd add to this, have you kept up with research in this area, specifically regarding that information you found flaw with to ensure it hasn't been discovered?

I'm 100% sure my research is current and up-to-date. I'm more than confident that nobody is aware of the scientific information i have acquired. The flaw is in fundamental physics, it will have serious implications for the the field of electrical engineering. But the off shoots of the information will possibly have its greatest impact in transport and the aerospace industry. I'm not posting my scientific finding into a forum message.

Look thanks for the assistance guys. I appreciate the advice you have given me. Thank you!

John.

 

[Jokerhelper]

Is it even possible to patent "scientific information"? How do you patent knowledge?

 

[AlephZero]

I'm 100% sure my research is current and up-to-date.

But you told us you haven't talked to anybody about it for 5 years, so how do you know?

I'm more than confident that nobody is aware of the scientific information i have acquired.

That is self-evident, if you haven't told anybody about it!

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not posting my scientific finding into a forum message.

You don't want money for it, but want it out there. So just do it. A copy here will serve as some proof you got it out there first and give you plenty of feedback.

Let me be perfectly honest with you, so far you've done nothing but tick off marks on a crackpot checklist. Not saying you are, but that's how you're appearing.

You seem very distrusting of the community.

 

[weburbia]

I am an administrator from viXra.org (Philip Gibbs) so what I am going to say is biased. However, my sincere advice is to ignore people who try to put you off archiving your work there.

Firstly notice that the detractors are always anonymous. Don't put any weight on people who criticize anonymously because they are not prepared to stand by there claims and do not put much thought into them. There are plenty of respectable academics who acknowledge that viXra.org is a useful service (at least to me privately).

Secondly, it is easy to find poor quality papers on viXra but there are many good papers there too. Most of the papers are too specialized for many people to judge them so people go on the few simpler ones they do understand. A good proportion have been published in peer review journals even though many of the scienitsts who use viXra.org do not have the usual academic incentives to do so. By the way there are also a fair number of people with .edu e-mail addresses who use viXra.org and even more from universities in non-US countries.

Finally, it is not the purpose of a preprint archive to give your work credibility. It is there to record and preserve the work long term, and to make it available quickly through open access to as many people as possible. Your priority is independently recorded in case someone else copies or rediscovers the idea afterwards. Credibility comes through other forms or recognition such as peer-reviewed publication and citations. It does not matter that people do not browse viXra.org as much as arXiv.org. In fact most people probably find papers relevant to their research either through citations or through keyword searches on Google.

If you do not intend to submit to a peer-review journal and you do not have access to an arXiv endorser then viXra.org is your best bet for an independent long-term archive. If you want more recognition you will also need to promote your work through blogs or forums, just make sure you use appropriate places. Do not give up on the idea of peer-review publication. There are lots of online journals that do not require payment. They may not have the highest impact factors but they can still give some useful feedback on your work, and even a little credibility if they accept it.

The worst thing you can do is keep your work hidden and "seek out collaborators". If the idea is obviously any good they will just copy it and give you no credit. If it is good but ahead of its time they will just ignore you until someone with a better reputation rediscovers the idea and publishes it, leaving you with no claim to priority.

 

[JaredJames]

Firstly notice that the detractors are always anonymous. Don't put any weight on people who criticize anonymously because they are not prepared to stand by there claims and do not put much thought into them.

I won't comment on the site, but they are certainly not anonymous - they are always around here, we know enough about them to be able to say they haven't just popped into randomly have a dig. They will most certainly stand by their claims and I'm sure would back them up if you ask them to.

 

[weburbia]

Unless they use their real name or put it somewhere it can be found such as in their profile then they are anonymous be definition. It does not matter how well known they are under the pseudonym.

 

[JaredJames]

Unless they use their real name or put it somewhere it can be found such as in their profile then they are anonymous be definition. It does not matter how well known they are under the pseudonym.

Just because they don't publish it, doesn't mean people don't know it. Within the community people are known and their reviews actually mean something.

You attacked them as effectively hiding whilst producing their reviews, they aren't doing that.

Just an additional note, a quick Google for vixra reviews wasn't pretty.

 

[DrummingAtom]

I'm curious as to why, with all threads like this, the OP is scared to reveal their work? They usually say how important it will be to science then never disclose it. If they wanted science to advance then why be selfish? After I think of these questions I usually think back to the crackpot index then remember why.