Submitting a paper as a nonacademic practitioner in a field

Question

I am a professional with an undergraduate education. Out of both curiosity and a commitment to continued education I read papers and research related to the field that I am interested in.

I recently came across a Master's Thesis directly related to my field of practice. With my knowledge of the field I found the thesis deeply flawed. The author was either ignorant of key information or excluded that information because they could not address it.

My desire is to publish something that presents the facts that were left out and shows how in light of that information and the arguments built on top of those different conclusions can be found. In order that 'the record' is correctly.

As a nonacademic practitioner how would I go around doing this?

If I am over reacting and a Master's Thesis is normally something that has the impact of students homework and is not built on top of by other academics explaining this to me is also a legitimate answer.

Answer 1

There's actually three questions here, so let's take a look at each:

1. The question you asked: How do I publish as a non-academic?
2. The question you implied: How do I publish a paper refuting another?
3. The question you should ask: Is it worth publishing a refutation of a master's thesis?

1. How do I publish as a non-academic?

Assuming you've got a paper you want to publish, the first step is to determine where to publish. Generally, your options are at a conference, or in a journal. Which direction to go depends a bit on your field.

• Conferences are generally the place to publish (relatively) small, incremental works. Presenting your paper at a conference can generate valuable face-to-face discussion to inform your next steps. My field (computer science) skews towards conference publishing.
• Journals are better for larger works with significant advances or particularly-reliable evidence. They're also better if you're not looking to travel to present your work. Older, more stable fields tend to do more journal-based publishing (e.g. I believe Physics tends to be journal-focused, though I'm not an expert).

Once you've determined your preferred medium, you'll need to pick out a specific conference/journal. This is entirely field-dependent, and your best bet is to find someone who has published in your area and ask advice. You can also generally get an idea of what a particular conference/journal is looking for by reading their call(s) for papers.

Once you've selected your venue, you'll need to read their publishing guidelines. Typically there will be a required style/format, usually accompanied by a template Word or LaTeX file. There will also be instructions on the actual submission process, typically run through a 3rd-party submission website. The actual submission is usually as simple as creating an account, uploading your files, and filling in your title, author list, and abstract. (note when I say "usually," what I really mean is "in computer science")

2. How do I publish a paper refuting another?

This shouldn't change much about the publishing process, other than the fact you should strongly consider publishing in the same venue as the original paper.

The writing of the refutation paper is probably going to look a little different than a normal paper, but I can't speak with authority on the subject as I've not written such a paper before. I'd just point out that unless you believe the original author was behaving maliciously/unethically, you should look for a tone that redirects more than refutes.

e.g. instead of saying "Author OP said X, but that's wrong because Einstein et al. said Y," synthesize the two: "Author OP investigated question A, resulting in claim X. However, this is inconsistent with Einstein et al's finding, Y. Further work is needed, modifying OP's approach in the following ways, etc."

3. Is it worth publishing a refutation of a master's thesis?

This is the question most of the answers here address. And I agree with them, the answer is most probably a simple "no."

A couple sub-questions to find your answer:

• Was the thesis published in a journal or conference proceedings?
• Did the author of the thesis go on to publish other works based on the thesis (a Google Scholar search or similar would help answer this)?
• Does your field, specifically, consider masters theses to be meaningful, significant contributions to its body of academic work?

If the answer to any of these is "yes," then it may be worth going ahead with your refutation. In particular, if the thesis was published in a reputable, widely-read/attended venue, then there's a very good chance the publishers would be interested in a paper that challenges or recontextualizes the original paper.

On the other hand, there's a very good chance that the answers to those questions are all "no." And in that case, there's very little chance any academic community will care enough to publish your refutation. Writing papers is a lot of work. Reviewing papers is a lot of work. Publishing papers is... well, still work, if a bit easier in the digital world. Instead of focusing effort on correcting a paper that was only seen by three professors at one institution for some master's student's final project, focus on ways to contribute your own expertise to the field directly.

Answer 2

The OP didn't mention a field, so I'll share what I know from math, since that's my area. In mathematics, there are a lot of master's theses online. We do not have a culture of building on the research findings within them or treating them as publications. We don't expect that they will make groundbreaking advances. If a master's thesis does prove something new and interesting, then the author should be encouraged to write it as a journal paper and get it published. When I referee papers that cite a master's thesis for a result that has not been proven elsewhere, I ask the author to include a proof, because I know just how easy it is for a master's thesis to be full of errors.

We also don't have a culture of "letters to the editor." And in this case, there is no editor because the thesis wasn't even published. I don't think you have to worry about "setting the record straight" or the idea that someone else might view that these assertions in an unpublished thesis went uncontested, as proof that they are correct.

Of course, you can write a paper sharing your insights. But if the point is to show that this master's thesis if full of errors, I'm not sure such a paper would be published easily, since most readers (professors) would probably assume that many master's theses are this way. I do think we view them more like assignments students do.

You might consider checking to see if the author continued on to a PhD program (which would make it more likely that they build on the wrong stuff in the thesis). And you might consider contacting the faculty member who supervised the thesis. Getting your insights into the literature would probably be a good thing, and if the master's thesis is part of the research coming from that professor's group, then it might make sense to collaborate with that group, so that they can benefit from your insights.

Answer 3

In many fields, an M.S. thesis is not that significant. When done from a university perspective, it is unfortunately quite frequent that important considerations obvious to a practitioner are left out. However, the existence of an MS thesis indicates that there is some interest in the academic and industrial community about this thesis, as the topic is usually chosen by the advisor and not by the student. My example tries to show that it is easy to misunderstand the drift of the thesis, and you do not want to be caught in such a misunderstanding.

If you have something to say about this topic, you should say it. You would start with a search on Google scholar (and maybe involving a research librarian at a near-by university. This might involve contacting faculty there.) Reading related articles starting with the references in the thesis will not only give you an idea what the state of the art is, but also how to write up your ideas.

Now, your idea of correcting the thesis is not a good one, whereas the idea of setting the record straight is a good one. MS theses are usually not considered sufficient quality for publication, (as a reviewed paper in a journal or presented at a conference in Computer Science / Engineering). It is even arguable whether they count as publications since their distribution is usually so limited (I think they should, but it is arguable). In Computer Science, Technical Reports used to be quite important but over the decades have lost relevance, and the same is true for M.S. theses. So, an article that wants to set the record straight by arguing against an M.S. thesis is usually not of interest to an editor or conference program committee. However, an article that treats the same topic as the thesis and is based on assumptions based in practice could be very interesting. Any good advice on the feasibility of such a project needs much more data.

Of course, you need to be careful if you criticize someone's work in a public forum. At the same time, the health of the field depends on robust interactions including challenges of assumptions. You do not want to be caught in mis-understanding something. For example, sometimes a project investigates the feasibility of a protocol under idealized assumptions. Practitioners reading such a thesis can be tempted to attack the assumptions, but the value of the thesis is not in making the assumptions, but in showing some theoretical result, which can lead the way to extending the research by asking how these assumptions can be made.

Answer 4

There is no requirement to be a member of academia to publish "academic" papers. If you write a valid paper that improves upon or corrects an earlier paper and do so in an "academic manner" (i.e. not making wild claims or insisting on viewpoints...) then it will be considered.

If an editor who receives it sees any merit, then it will be sent to reviewers. But the merit is in the paper, not the author.

Most academic papers are written by academics as they are more likely to have the required background. It isn't a requirement, however, as there are others, such as, perhaps, yourself, who can advance scholarship.

Writing style might matter somewhat. If you've read a bunch of papers you probably have an idea about how to present valid arguments. Just. Do. It.