As an independent author with no academic connections, how can I have my paper reviewed?

Question

I have recently concluded some independent work (algorithmic) and, since the results seemed to merit it, wrote a paper about it.

As an independent author without connections to academics or other experts with detailed knowledge about my paper, I tried to submit my paper to two different journals. The first rejected my original draft and after significant rework I attempted to submit it at a second journal.

After reading the abstract, the second journal actually invited me to submit the paper, only to reject it as well.

In the meantime I tried registering at ResearchGate, only to find out that since I am not associated with a research institution, I cannot join as a researcher but just as an interested observer.

I still believe my paper is valid and could be published. But I honestly do not know how I could have it reviewed and improved to a point so that I can re-submit it.

In other words: can anyone in this community give me some pointers as to how to improve my paper and/or validate it?

Answer 1

Best method is likely to find a mentor. Someone you know personally in the field of the paper is ideal. If you've done undergraduate studies before, ask one of your old professors - they might be able to help even if they no longer remember you. Alternatively, if you're close to your alma mater, you could visit them and talk to a professor there. Professors at your alma mater can help you even if you graduated decades ago.

You could also keep submitting to journals, but given two desk rejects in a row, that's not likely to be productive (at least not initially - odds are there'll be a journal that will send it for review, when you'll get real feedback, but you might not find such a journal for a while).

Answer 2

ResearchGate is not what you want. You can keep trying, but if you got any feedback on your paper from your first submissions, then take the advice.

If the response was that the paper isn't sufficiently "novel" to be published then you may be a long way from getting it published by any reputable journal. If it was that you haven't proven your claims then you may just have a lot of work to do.

One option is to visit a department in some nearby university and try to make contact with a faculty member in that field (CS). They might be willing to help you understand the issues and even improve the paper, but it is a bit of a long-shot as they are generally busy enough.

As an independent writer you may not yet be familiar with the standards of proof for algorithmic work, and you may even not be up to date on the state of the art. But, feedback from a knowing human can be very helpful.

The other option is to try to improve the paper as much as you can and submit to a different journal. At a certain point of improvement you may get a proper full review which will give guidance on how to further improve the work.

But, places that don't provide review won't help you and disreputable journals will only harm your reputation. It isn't that you are unaffiliated, but that the work itself needs to meet standards.

And note that cold emails to academics are unlikely to be answered. But most will have specified hours when they are in the office and open to questions, though normally from students.

Answer 3

In other words: can anyone in this community give me some pointers as to how to improve my paper and/or validate it?

Given the desk rejections, I think one idea you could try that might lead to useful feedback would be to identify the simplest concrete question that you think your method solves and for which you believe public methods do not offer a good solution or a good answer. If the question is sufficiently mathematical in nature, you could then post the question (not your answer) to a site like math overflow in order to see whether your expectations on the difficulty of your question are correct: if you receive no answers, this will mean little (the effort people spend on MO questions is very low on average), but there is a real chance that a question you think is difficult does have a simple answer using known techniques (or even a non-obvious answer that an expert can nonetheless find with low effort - some people are very smart and knowledgeable). If that is the case, you absolutely need to know about it in order to judge the value of your research. Depending on your area, there are probably other suitable sites you could use if math overflow does not fit.

Similarly, you could extract a minimal problem that your research allows you to solve as before and ask one of the newer language models to find a solution (GPT-o1-mini and GPT-o1-preview are fairly good at mathematical and algorithmic reasoning compared to most people, for things that people can solve in a short time). Again, failure to solve your question will mean close to nothing, but there is a real chance that if your question is easier than you expect, the model might find a way to solve it that is different and more efficient than yours. If this happens, it will point you towards methods that you do not yet know about but that you should learn given your field.

The effort to boil your paper down to the minimal advancement it provides over the state of the art as you know it may also in itself give you more clarity about the reasons for the rejections. Understanding the reasons for the rejections will allow you to improve your research.

Lastly, in order to preserve priority, you could, I suppose, post your paper to a site like zenodo. It is virtually certain that nobody will read it there, but in case your ideas are novel and correct, you can point to your preprint there as evidence that you came up with the idea.

Answer 4

Research is hard. Getting research published is harder. So, to answer your question:

In other words: can anyone in this community give me some pointers as to how to improve my paper and/or validate it?

One method would be to obtain the research skills (including writing and communication skills) necessary to join the broader research community. Most people do this by obtaining higher degrees (such as doctorates or in some cases masters degrees). Some lucky people have employers who train them (like the agency I work with where we have people with B.S. and M.S. degrees leading projects and publishing results).

Answer 5

Consider hiring an academic researcher for a constructive referee review

Given that you have already submitted to academic journals and have not yet got to the stage of referee reports (you got what we call a "desk rejection") it is likely that you will not be able to get constructive feedback on improvements to your paper through further journal submissions. In view of this, it is worth considering directly hiring an academic researcher to review your paper and give you a constructive referee report. You will probably need to pay for this (since it is not the kind of task that will be attractive to a researcher as an ex gratia activity), but it might be worthwhile to get the ball rolling. Ideally, a constructive referee report will give you enough constructive feedback to help you improve your paper up to the point where you can get it through to the refereeing stage at a journal, which will then allow you to either get your paper accepted, or at least receive further constructive peer review from journal referees.

Answer 6

You could ask for a review.

You want informed and experienced researchers/professionals to review your paper (or the results, through your paper). Well, try asking some.

Now, this will not be so easy, because almost all of them are quite busy, and already are burdened with review duties (through conference program committees, journal editorial boards etc.) ; however, it is not uncommon for requests for a review to be accepted - even if they are more likely to be rejected.

The best way to make this request is to have prior relations to the relevant reviewer... if not that, being physically where the reviewer or their research group are, and possibly participating in some colloquium or dropping in on a seminar session, also helps. Otherwise, a common acquaintance would help. The least likely form of request is a "cold email" to someone you don't know and have never been in touch with; but it's still worth it.

If you write that "cold email", don't just drop your request right away, and definitely don't give any details or link to the paper. The first email will have some kind of salutation, indication of relevant research experience or interest, a brief, brief introduction of who you are and how your independent research came about, an brief, brief indication of how your findings/results might be useful to the field or to the reviewer - then finally the question of whether they would be willing to consider looking at the paper.

Like @ScottishTapWater wrote - it is quite likely that in this case, you'll just never get an answer, or get a very curt no-answer. But still worth the shot if that's the only avenue.

---

PS - Other suggestions like finding a mentor or trying other venues for reviewed-publication are very relevant!