What's the Process for Publishing Scientific Papers?

[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.

 

[weburbia]

@JaredJames, in one recent case I exposed the identity of an anonymous reviewer who criticized viXra. He quickly apologized, admitted he was wrong and removed his criticism (see http://blog.vixra.org/2011/03/30/new-anti-crackpot-on-the-block/) I think that says it all.

 

[JaredJames]

@JaredJames, in one recent case I exposed the identity of an anonymous reviewer who criticized viXra. He quickly apologized, admitted he was wrong and removed his criticism (see http://blog.vixra.org/2011/03/30/new-anti-crackpot-on-the-block/) I think that says it all.

1) It's a blog (by you).
2) It's from your site.
3) I looked at independent reviews (for obvious reasons).

That aside, you cast doubt on the members of this site and they are who I am referring to mainly. Views cast by them have been backed up by a quick Google search on the matter.

I'm not interested in debating the site, simply to point out you shouldn't come here and cast doubt on members for no good reason (especially given the above).

 

[cristo]

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.

I find this very hard to believe. Anyone with a university email address can submit to the arxiv without needed to be sponsored (or whatever they call it).

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.

So, why are vixra articles not added to citation databases such as SPIRES? If it really were a credible website, then citations from your articles would be recognised as such.

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.

You seem to really misunderstand how research is conducted.

 

[weburbia]

Obviously its a blog by me. Its where I revealed his name and the original review was deleted as I explained to you.

When someone glibly says "Don't use vixra, it smells like crackpot. No one will read whatever you have to contribute if you put it there" then I certainly have the right to come here and defend it. If you think you found a review that supports this statement then provide a link and I will criticize that too.

I am still waiting for someone to "back up their claims" by answering the points I made in my response.

 

[JaredJames]

Obviously its a blog by me. Its where I revealed his name and the original review was deleted as I explained to you.

When someone glibly says "Don't use vixra, it smells like crackpot. No one will read whatever you have to contribute if you put it there" then I certainly have the right to come here and defend it. If you think you found a review that supports this statement then provide a link and I will criticize that too.

I am still waiting for someone to "back up their claims" by answering the points I made in my response.

I will not perpetuate you here. You are free to search yourself. It was only mentioned because it supported the claims made when you said they were baseless.

Again, I am not here to attack your site.

 

[weburbia]

I find this very hard to believe. Anyone with a university email address can submit to the arxiv without needed to be sponsored (or whatever they call it).

Some people who can submit to arXiv also submit to viXra.
Here are links to a sample papers submitted from .edu addresses:

http://vixra.org/abs/1011.0071
http://vixra.org/abs/1005.0052
http://vixra.org/abs/1009.0061
http://vixra.org/abs/0903.0006

So, why are vixra articles not added to citation databases such as SPIRES? If it really were a credible website, then citations from your articles would be recognised as such.

The ones in the relevant HEP category are in SPIRES, use this link to search http://inspirebeta.net/search?ln=en&p=vixra&f=&action_search=Search

You seem to really misunderstand how research is conducted.

I talk from personal experience. In what way do you think I misunderstand?

 

[weburbia]

I will not perpetuate you here. You are free to search yourself. It was only mentioned because it supported the claims made when you said they were baseless.

Again, I am not here to attack your site.

I search for such criticism all the time and I always defend the site. That is why I am here. I don't think any of these "reviews" support the claims made here. If you think they do please provide an example so that I can explain why it does not.

 

[Pengwuino]

Hmm since when did having a .edu address certify you as a non-crackpot? You could be some philosophy major who thinks they've discovered a theory of everything and be eligible to post on arxiv.

 

[weburbia]

Hmm since when did having a .edu address certify you as a non-crackpot? You could be some philosophy major who thinks they've discovered a theory of everything and be eligible to post on arxiv.

Where did I say that? I agree that arXiv has plenty of controversial papers.

However I don't share your implied disdain for philosophers which is quite a give-away. People with such narrow viewpoints often produce this kind of empty criticism based on rhetoric rather than sound arguments.

 

[G01]

Where did I say that? I agree that arXiv has plenty of controversial papers.

However I don't share your implied disdain for philosophers which is quite a give-away. People with such narrow viewpoints often produce this kind of empty criticism based on rhetoric rather than sound arguments.

Pengwuino's point is that having a .edu address does not neccessarily mean you are qualified to post papers on the subjects covered on the arXiv. However, this is where arXiv's endorsement system plays an important role.

 

[vici10]

In order to upload article on arXiv.org one does not need .edu e-mail account. Even yahoo or google is enough, although they do prefer .edu. But one has to provide Institution affiliation.

 

[John37309]

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.

weburbia,
I very much appreciate you taking the time to explain about the viXra.org website. I'm an outsider to the academic system so i don't have the EDU address or i don't have a degree, a masters or a doctorate in anything. But! My scientific findings are high quality, important and valuable to the scientific community.

In all likelihood, i will probably end up putting my scientific findings on the viXra.org website. Its seems to be that i have to fight to even get time with doctors and professors in universities. And even if i do get someone to read my research, they might not agree with my scientific findings and will most likely dismiss my scientific findings as rubbish. Well time will tell if I'm a crackpot or a hoaxter, time will tell. My science is very easy to understand and its mainstream science.

Well i have gone to great lengths to test and verify my scientific results, its taken years of research. My science will go public, and most likely on the viXra website.

So thank you weburbia for providing a very beneficial service. I believe the universities and scientific institutions today have too much of a strangle hold on publishing. But that's about to change.

weburbia, what i am about to publish, if i do publish to the viXra website, might add credibility to the site. I think its important to allow ANYONE to publish whatever science they want to publish, even if its investigating the weird, strange and wonderful. Even scientifically investigating stuff like astrology, Chinese medicine, telepathy, ghosts, whatever, its all important research if its carried out properly. Sometimes its the crackpots that make the most interesting break through's.

John.

 

[JaredJames]

John, on a serious note, would you oblige me (and I'm sure others) by posting a link to the work once you get it online?

 

[eri]

I feel obliged to point out that the vast majority of scientists who use arXiv will not look at viXra. I'm a postdoc who uses and cites papers from arXiv regularly in my work (if they've been submitted to a journal, published already, or are review articles), and had never even heard of viXra until you brought it up. Feel free to put it there, but if you want anyone to read it and use it, you're still better off trying to get it published in a journal, and if you can do that you'll have no trouble getting it endorsed for arXiv. And if your work truly is mainstream science, you should have no trouble getting it published.

Scientific investigation of anything is welcomed by the the right scientific journal. You can find plenty of papers that investigated astrology, alternative medicine, etc. The fact that they found it didn't work didn't stop them from publishing that result.

I second Jared's request.

 

[G01]

I second Jared's request.

I third. As someone whose research is essentially in applied electrodynamics, I am genuinely interested. I am very skeptical of anybody saying they are onto a breakthrough of this magnitude without any further information, of course. But still definitely interested.

 

[John37309]

Gentlemen, (and Ladies if there are any reading this)
I will remember where i got help when i asked for help. And everyone here has helped me and offered me good advice. When i publish my paper, i will come back and update this thread or maybe start a fresh thread for a bit of community peer-review and feedback. I promise!

Anyway i have a few other bits and pieces to chat about but i will start threads in the appropriate forum section when i get time.

Guys its good to talk openly about the scientific publishing process. And how people can overcome any difficulty they have with publishing. The system should be open to everyone, not just academics who do scientific studies for a living. Science is for everyone, not just the elite.

John.

 

[JaredJames]

Guys its good to talk openly about the scientific publishing process. And how people can overcome any difficulty they have with publishing. The system should be open to everyone, not just academics who do scientific studies for a living. Science is for everyone, not just the elite.

Science is open to everyone, but you have to realize that the current state of things means it just isn't within the scope of the average joe.

The current checks and balances are there to ensure people aren't just barreling in and repeating / producing flawed work.

As long as you follow scientific method and you are sure of your subject matter, getting it to other people to check is easy and then you're away, qualifications or not.

They key thing to realize is that the chances of someone without qualifications in the subject (or at least no formal training) coming up with a major breakthrough are slim to none. Don't confuse the scientists of years ago with those of today. Things are very different.

Again, we would all really appreciate you linking to the work and I hope you do so in good time.

 

[John37309]

Science is open to everyone, but you have to realize that the current state of things means it just isn't within the scope of the average joe.

The current checks and balances are there to ensure people aren't just barreling in and repeating / producing flawed work.

As long as you follow scientific method and you are sure of your subject matter, getting it to other people to check is easy and then you're away, qualifications or not.

They key thing to realize is that the chances of someone without qualifications in the subject (or at least no formal training) coming up with a major breakthrough are slim to none. Don't confuse the scientists of years ago with those of today. Things are very different.

Again, we would all really appreciate you linking to the work and I hope you do so in good time.

Yep, thanks for your help Jared. I will let you guys know in the next month or 2 once I'm ready. I will give you guys a link.

As i mentioned, you might generalise by saying that some of the top work is done by large groups in large institutions with big budgets. But i think you will be surprised when you find out the subject matter of my paper. But all in good time. I still have to complete some of the research. You might think modern science has the vast bulk of how nature works. But in reality, we are only just getting started. We have a very bright future, i hope i can contribute to that in some way.

John.

 

[nbo10]

Do you have access to articles from relevant journals? Without such access it would be difficult to be tuned into state-of-the-art research.

 

[weburbia]

I feel obliged to point out that the vast majority of scientists who use arXiv will not look at viXra.

viXra gets thousands of hits every day including its fair share from academic sites. It is found mostly through links and keyword searches so it does not really matter that people don't go there specifically to look for the latest papers.

Feel free to put it there, but if you want anyone to read it and use it, you're still better off trying to get it published in a journal, and if you can do that you'll have no trouble getting it endorsed for arXiv. And if your work truly is mainstream science, you should have no trouble getting it published.

I agree that seeking to get it published in a journal is a good idea, however you underestimate how difficult that can be for someone with no academic affiliation. Publishing in high impact factor journals seems to be very difficult and possibly expensive for outsiders, even when the work is mainstream. There are low impact factor journals that are easier to get into but they also give less impact. Such a publication does not mean you will easily find an endorser for arXiv, and even if you do the arXiv will probably move it to one of their "general" categories where it is less visible. In any case, half the point of using a preprint archive is to make a copy available before you give it to a journal.

 

[eri]

Most journals will waive publication fees if you don't have an institute willing to pay for it. Academic qualifications don't matter; they will read your paper no matter who you are if you submit it in the correct format and it's not obviously crackpot. Some high impact journals also have high acceptance rates; ApJ is a top astrophysics journal, and accepts nearly 80% of submissions. And if you did get it accepted, there wouldn't be a problem getting it endorsed. If the poster got something accepted to ApJ, I'd be happy to endorse for them.

 

[twofish-quant]

I agree that seeking to get it published in a journal is a good idea, however you underestimate how difficult that can be for someone with no academic affiliation.

This is very field dependent.

Publishing in high impact factor journals seems to be very difficult and possibly expensive for outsiders, even when the work is mainstream. There are low impact factor journals that are easier to get into but they also give less impact.

Even low impact journals give you more impact than no-journal.

In astrophysics, the "bread and butter" articles from the United States all go into Astrophysical Journal or Ap. J. Lett. and they have something like a 75-80% acceptance rate. The attitude of Ap. J. is that they will publish anything that isn't obvious crackpottery.

Things are very, very different in other fields.

 

[eri]

While ApJ does publish close to 80% of submissions, they won't take everything you send them. As a referee for them, I've recommended several papers not be published for various reasons. They simply tend to get fairly high-quality submissions in the first place, and do have a high impact factor in astrophysics.

 

[zahero_2007]

Can you just name the field of physics that your research can be sorted under?is it quantum mechanics , condensed matter physics ...etc?

 

[twofish-quant]

While ApJ does publish close to 80% of submissions, they won't take everything you send them. As a referee for them, I've recommended several papers not be published for various reasons. They simply tend to get fairly high-quality submissions in the first place, and do have a high impact factor in astrophysics.

A lot of astrophysics papers are I ran this computer simulation/looked in my telescope and this is what I saw. Those go into Ap.J. If your paper is "I looked in my telescope and saw space aliens", you wouldn't publish in Ap.J., you'd send your paper to Nature or Science.

The other thing is that the 80% publication rate is the fraction of papers that eventually get published. It's uncommon for a paper to be published immediately without the refreree asking for revisions, and a lot of the three to six months that it takes to get a paper published in Ap.J. involves back-and-forth with the referees.

In some fields, the journals consider themselves "gatekeepers." This tends not to be true in astrophysics where the gatekeepers are the grant review boards. Once the telescope allocation committee, computer allocation committee, or grant review board has approved a grant proposal and you've done the work and gotten results, it's unlikely what what you have is unpublishable.

Also, journals are mostly for score keeping, quality control, and archival purposes. No one I know reads Ap. J. for the latest developments. People read Los Alamos for that, because by the time it gets into Ap.J. it's six months old.

One thing that makes astrophysics "work" is that the major journals are all owned by non-profit professional societies, which is why you can get all of the papers online. In the medical field, the major journals are owned by for-profit publishers and you get into a lot of non-sense that astrophysicists don't have to deal with.

How to get a paper published is very, very field specific. Personally, I think that the publication system in astrophysics works pretty well, but the publication system in economics is extremely broken.