Do you mean degrees, by certificates? Yes, in the academic community, having a PhD or a DPh is going to make you much more respected than someone with only a BSc. That being said, having reputable publications is also important if you want to be respected.
Really ? I didn't know anything about that.
Next time on I might ask for my professor's agreement then send her what I write to think about the pulication later.
I still have one/two unpublished but after rereading ithem several times ithey sound really like childish discoveries. I hesitate. While searching for a solution, I find it great, but after completion, I feel bored with ithem. Also, I suppose conferences held except in some rich nations like Japan are sort of a money making business. I hesitate, and that although my professor is an adjunct teacher, he still might probably refuse because of this.
I'm reading between the lines a little here, but I suspect that what you really want to ask is whether or not a person is generally taken seriously as a researcher without formal graduate training.
The answer is likely not. Certainly there are exceptions. There are may M.D.s for example, who publish research on a regular basis. But in general, the formal education is what gives you the background in a field to know what problems need to be researched. It also gives you the experience to know what information to include in a paper and when to make reference to other work. This is, of course, on top of giving you the tools to conduct any research properly and effectively.
It is unconventional for a person to write a paper, and give it to a professor simply for feedback without that professor having been a part of the research in one way or another.
What you will run into is not so much a case of respect or lack thereof. Without proper credentials, people will naturally scrutinize your work to a much higher degree because there is no mechanism in place that assures them that your methods have at least at some point been subject to review.