Thank you to mentors, advisors and members

[difalcojr]

I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia.

Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP (International Journal of Recent Advances in Physics) published it in the current August 2025 volume. I really can't believe they did that, but they did. It covers some of the discussion contained in the threads here. Here's the link: https://wireilla.com/physics/ijrap/vol14.html. Check the Acknowledgements at least. Don't know anything about their different journals more than they are located in New South Wales, Australia.

The paper seems like a guppy amongst whales to me. It is just a simple, high school math model, and it is in with the QM and other highly complicated physics papers! Physics was never my field; my education was a BS in Mineral Engineering. Optics still falls within Physics, though.

Thank you all again. I thought all your comments and criticisms were valid and very good.

 

[renormalize]

Don't know anything about their different journals more than they are located in New South Wales, Australia.

Congratulations!
But do note that neither IJRAP nor its ISSN: 2201-1056 are listed on Clarivate's Master Journal List. So unfortunately said journal is not considered a valid reference source here on Physics Forums.
I'm curious: how did you make the choice to submit and publish there?

 

[difalcojr]

Thanks and for that information too. Oh, well, just as well. Not recognized here, should've figured. But I sure didn't want another thread started here at this time. Hope they have some scientific readership.
I had put a short paper onto academia.com, and a member there, Jacken Scott, sent me a message and a notice from IJRAP calling for papers. So, I put a longer one together and sent it to them, and they had 2 reviewers with mandatory suggestions. Quite good, I thought, their criticisms. Shaped the format of the final paper.

 

[hutchphd]

I am pleased that the interaction was useful for you. It is the most one can expect! Good luck.

 

[sbrothy]

Congratulations!
But do note that neither IJRAP nor its ISSN: 2201-1056 are listed on Clarivate's Master Journal List. So unfortunately said journal is not considered a valid reference source here on Physics Forums.
I'm curious: how did you make the choice to submit and publish there?

I, of course, had nothing to do with helping you (EDIT: I mean the OP. Replied to the wrong post really. Sorry.) and I'm not out trying to steal anyone's thunder. Just wanted to say:

The bar on this forum is indeed high, and the fact that it's enforced so vigorously is one of the reasons I really like it here. It's a nice help for those of us (read: me) who need help with separating the wheat from the chaff.

That being said congratulations on being published!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Thank you for this kind message!

 

[difalcojr]

Thank you. Yes, I agree, completely, the bar is set high here and with good reason, as far as I can see.

For as one not in the field of physics, from reading various posts on this forum of the complexities of theories and the plausible number of such theories for explanations of this or that aspect of physics, it seems a highly dense science now of complicated ideas and theories, and some often not completely proven. As difficult as the physics papers are to follow, you do have to separate the chaff from the wheat just for the sake of your needed time to study anything, as was stated in one of the forums.

I just hope some may have time to separate the wheat from the chaff on the Wireilla International Journals, too, specifically the Recent Advances in Physics journal which now links to this physicsforums.com website for some of the proofs of theory. As an aside, as to references for the proofs in a first paper copy, one reviewer said the reference list was "insufficiently authoritative, relying heavily on forum posts". The nerve!

 

[sbrothy]

I will abstain from commenting on the content, only trying to constructively critique the form:

Heh, the nerve indeed. Now I haven’t read your paper in depth (they also have the nerve to call it an “article”!), but the reviewer does have somewhat of a point. In one place at least you cite a forum post but then goes on to cite the “real” source for same.

Now I can guess as to why you would do so (to credit PFs), and although perhaps admirable in spirit not so professional in execution.

Also, you mention personal experience and this might be where the difference between a “paper” and an “article” comes about.

I’d expect a proper paper to be strictly formal in it’s language. Then again I’m a nobody and don’t really know where I found the nerve to be so blunt - or open my mouth at all. I do have a history of putting my foot in it.