Other Questions on quality of research

  • Thread starter Thread starter trees and plants
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quality Research
AI Thread Summary
The quality of research papers in math and physics does not need to match the groundbreaking work of figures like Einstein. Instead, research should significantly advance the field, be novel, and align with the journal's focus. Incremental advancements are common, but contributions must be substantial enough for others to build upon. Acceptance criteria include the novelty of the work, appropriateness for the journal, and the overall quality of the research, including methods and conclusions. Papers can be valuable even if rejected, and understanding acceptance standards is best achieved through reading peer-reviewed articles and discussing them with peers and supervisors.
trees and plants
Hello. Questions: What should be the quality of research papers or research works and results in math or physics? I have this wrong idea that it should be equivalent or better to that of Einstein's but i think on the other hand it should not be but i do not know, i have my doubts.

So should it be at least a work equivalent in quality to that of perhaps general relativity or special relativity or not? What kind of quality should a research work have to be accepted by journals or at least to be considered of enough value? Could it be rejected from journals and still be of enough value? Could you give me some examples? What determines the acceptance of the work? Is it the scientific field? The topics? Or are these irrelevant to the enough value needed to be accepted?

If you want and can please use some links or give some examples of works that were accepted or have enough value, so that i can understand what is going on with the research works and their value and acceptance.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might find this Insights Article of interest: Guide to Publishing in Peer Reviewed Journals. I think it will answer most of your technical questions.

As to the quality... no it doesn't have to be a ground-breaking piece of work. What reviewers are generally looking for:

  1. Does the work advance the field in a significant way?
    Most advancements are incremental, but to be publishable, they have to be a contribution that other researchers are able to reliably build off of. It can't be a trivial result.
  2. Is the work novel?
    What they're looking for is something new to the field. Generally it can't duplicate something that's already been done, established or is a well-known or understood result. It can however duplicate something that's brand new (i.e. an independent validation of something that's still questionable or not well understood).
  3. Is the work appropriate for the journal?
    Journals have specific audiences and cover very specific sub-fields. Sometimes researcher will do okay work, but for whatever reason submit it to a journal that doesn't really cover that particular topic.
  4. [Edit] For got to add the quality of the scientific work.
    Maybe a no-brainer, but reviewers are also required to assess the quality of the work. Are the methods appropriate? Are the conclusions supported by the results? Are there any glaring errors? Does the work rely on uncertain assumptions? That type of thing. It doesn't need to be perfect, but you need generally at least two of your academic peers to agree that the quality of the work meets minimum standards.
And really, the best way to learn where the threshold is: read a lot of peer-reviewed papers. And talk about them with your supervisor, and your peers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Nugatory and Vinh Nguyen
I graduated with a BSc in Physics in 2020. Since there were limited opportunities in my country (mostly teaching), I decided to improve my programming skills and began working in IT, first as a software engineer and later as a quality assurance engineer, where I’ve now spent about 3 years. While this career path has provided financial stability, I’ve realized that my excitement and passion aren’t really there, unlike what I felt when studying or doing research in physics. Working in IT...
Hello, I’m an undergraduate student pursuing degrees in both computer science and physics. I was wondering if anyone here has graduated with these degrees and applied to a physics graduate program. I’m curious about how graduate programs evaluated your applications. In addition, if I’m interested in doing research in quantum fields related to materials or computational physics, what kinds of undergraduate research experiences would be most valuable?

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
63
Views
8K
Back
Top