sakonpure6 said:
Sorry to hijack the thread, but in your opinion what constitutes a publishable paper (what would an undergrad need to accomplish) ?
Usually, it is a novel and interesting result in either theory or experiment that is more likely than not to be correct.
"Novel" is a bit easier to understand objectively: it means the same result has not been published previously.
"Interesting" is more subjective. Often in the search for "novel," scientists (including undergrads) go off into the weeds, because accessible theory and experiments that have not been previously published are more likely in areas where no one has cared enough to work very hard. This tends to make them less "interesting."
As mentors of a lot of undergrad (and high school) research, we've found that there are several niches that work well:
Inventing new instruments and techniques (or revisiting usefulness of existing ones with faster/cheaper technology)
Device for Underwater Laboratory Simulation of Unconfined Blast Waves
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.02986.pdf
Shock Tube Design for High Intensity Blast Waves for Laboratory Testing of Armor and Combat Materiel
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.07813.pdf
A More Accurate Fourier Transform
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.01832.pdf
Accurate Measurements of Free Flight Drag Coefficients with Amateur Doppler Radar
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.06500.pdf
Measuring Barrel Friction in the 5.56mm NATO
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA555779
Bullet Retarding Forces in Ballistic Gelatin by Analysis of High Speed Video
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.5215.pdf
Novel experiments that are interesting because of environmental applications
Terminal Performance of Lead-Free Pistol Bullets in Ballistic Gelatin Using Retarding Force Analysis from High Speed Video
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.01000.pdf
Performance testing of lead free primers: blast waves, velocity variations, and environmental testing
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.6390.pdf
High-speed measurement of firearm primer blast waves
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.2701.pdf
Evidence for Magnetoreception in Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), Black Drum (Pogonias cromis), and Sea Catfish (Ariopsis felis)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.09302.pdf
Novel experiments that are interesting because of educational applications
Studying the Internal Ballistics of a Combustion Driven Potato Cannon using High-speed Video
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.0966.pdf
Measuring Deflagration Velocity in Oxy-Acetylene with High-Speed Video
http://chemeducator.org/bibs/0016001/16110279.htm
An Acoustic Demonstration of Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.1635.pdf
Echo-based measurement of the speed of sound
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.2664.pdf
Finding mistakes in published papers and writing comments pointing them out
Comments on “Analysis of permanent magnets as elasmobranch bycatch reduction devices in hook-and-line and longline trials”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.5910.pdf
Errors in Length-weight Parameters at FishBase.org
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.5216.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Publishes Misleading Information on Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.5366.pdf
Predictions Wrong Again on Dead Zone Area - Gulf of Mexico Gaining Resistance to Nutrient Loading
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.8064.pdf
Review/hypothesis papers bringing together different fields that are clearly related, but not well connected in the literature
Nutrient Loading Increases Red Snapper Production in the Gulf of Mexico
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.5114.pdf
Review of Magnetic Shark Deterrents: Hypothetical Mechanisms and Evidence for Selectivity
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.07158.pdf
Testing products to compare measured values with product specifications or claims
Testing Estes Thrust Claims for the A10-PT Rocket motor
http://www.libertylaunchsystems.com/RocketsMagazine/Issue0031/Sample.pdf
Comparing Measured Fluorocarbon Leader Breaking Strength with Manufacturer Claims
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.5260.pdf
More Inaccurate Specifications of Ballistic Coefficients
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf
Comparing Advertised Ballistic Coefficients with Independent Measurements
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf
There is a very deep well of potential projects testing physical specifications of all manner of products.
In physics, most interest may be testing specifications of laboratory equipment. Odds are pretty good there is also considerable interest testing specifications of equipment marketed for educational labs. How accurate is that force sensor, thermometer, etc? Every sensor in the Vernier catalog is a potential project.
Testing validity of commonly used equations with little published data supporting how they are used
Most equations in science have some area of applicability where they have been validated as accurate. But over time, usage often expands far beyond the "fine print" relating to the assumptions and conditions where the equations are valid. Experimental tests of these equations to explore their validity in areas of ongoing application can be of great interest.
A Test of the Acoustic Impedance Model of Blast Wave Transmission [in air]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274705917_A_Test_of_the_Acoustic_Impedance_Model_of_Blast_Wave_Transmission
Experimental Test of the Acoustic-Impedance Model for Underwater Blast Wave Transmission through Plate Materials
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001202
Experimental Tests of the Proportionality of Aerodynamic Drag to Air Density for Supersonic Projectiles
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.07336.pdf
Altitude Dependence of Rocket Motor Performance
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA571357
This is probably the niche that requires the most background work and guidance from a mentor to identify, because the idea to test how the formula is being used usually originates with the recognition of an ABSENCE of supporting data. Gaining confidence that there is really an absence of supporting data in the literature requires an extremely thorough background literature search. But note that in 3 or 4 of the cases above, the new (and relatively simple) experimental result showed that the application of the well-known formula was inappropriate. Formulas without supporting data are wrong a lot of the time.
Note, that our niches seldom include significant advances in FUNDAMENTAL physics. The skills and resources are often outside of the scope of abilities of undergrads. But there is a lot of good and solid science to be done in the niches we find useful. Most of the discussion among my physics colleagues would not center on whether these papers are "publishable" (since they are all published), but on whether they are "physics" of the sort suitable for undergrad research. Each institution sets their own standards on that.
