Timeline for Getting a scientific article published with no qualifications to any scientific journal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | user10636 | @CapeCode Granted, if you don't care whether anybody ever reads it, or what other people in the profession will eventually think of you when they see where you've published, sure you can get a bunch of trash work published. I think OP wants to get the kind of publication that actually makes a difference and gets read and cited. You can't get practically anything published that way. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 16:50 | comment | added | user10636 | @jakebeal Oh, I don't disagree. I think my field has a really unhelpful, overly competitive way of looking at publication. (Don't get me started on how long it takes journals to respond to submissions either.) But I don't think philosophy is the only field with problems like this either. YMMV | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 16:49 | history | edited | user10636 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed length of time and made the language more tentative in response to comments below.
|
| Oct 24, 2014 at 16:04 | comment | added | jakebeal | @shane Wow... that sounds like a really sad and dismal way for a field to work. How do people make any progress? Or do they any more? | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 15:18 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Does that mean that in your field you get a PhD and then do another 7 to 13 years of research before publishing anything? Or does it take 7 to 17 years to earn the PhD? | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 13:48 | comment | added | user10636 | Obviously if you're in a different field with different norms, matters would be different. But I only know of one person out in my field who published an article at a top journal right out of undergrad. Arguably, he was more advanced than most PhD students. He had been studying philosophy since high school and put in 40 hours a week on top of his other undergrad studies reading the current literature. That's fairly unusual, though. I'd be interested in hearing from others about norms in their fields. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 13:33 | comment | added | Cape Code | What you have to do is make an original, important contribution to the sum total of human knowledge My God, if only that were true... You can publish practically anything... | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 13:32 | comment | added | Gimelist | @Murphy Yes, it indeed becomes harder to find novel ideas to publish. That's why researchers move on. The livelihood of researchers is finding novel things. Unless you're a teacher in academia with no interest in original research, I find it hard to believe that you will need 15 years to publish anything. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 9:52 | comment | added | Murphy | @Michael it varies by field, in comp sci some undergrads get the occasional paper out. In other very new fields there can be low hanging fruit. In very old fields it becomes harder to come up with something novel to publish. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 7:47 | comment | added | Gimelist | 15-20 years? Much less actually. If you only get to publish after 15 years in academia, something may be wrong. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 4:24 | comment | added | half-pass | @Ryan, good point. You can work with a private IRB if you don't have a university affiliation. | |
| Oct 24, 2014 at 0:01 | comment | added | IS Prof | I would also add that you can't just start doing psychological experiments. Journals won't publish research that has not been approved by an institutional review board (IRB). | |
| Oct 23, 2014 at 23:55 | comment | added | Behacad | Great answer, although I wish to highlight that plenty of people publish as undergraduates, with only 4 years or so of directed effort in general. EDIT: Although, I suppose if you want to publish INDEPENDENTLY, most people would indeed need 10 or so years of training to do so well. | |
| Oct 23, 2014 at 23:39 | history | answered | user10636 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |