9

I am 15 years of age and I have studied Computer Science and developed strong programming skills (specializing in security and simulations). I have also done a few programming projects and made money off of it.

This said, I normally read computer science papers on arXiv (cryptography and security, mainly), and I have noticed that some of the papers published are tutorials, basics of fundamental theories and analysis of the most basics topics or techniques. I still read it in hope of discovering something new.

However, I sometimes end up learning nothing new and so I am starting to think that these authors are just publishing these material for sake of it or to reach some sort of goal.

On the other hand I feel like I could probably do a better job (not to sound full of myself) and probably even construct a interesting paper on an subject and write up a whole load of analysis and ideas and show proofs and such.

I would love to publish in peer-reviewed journals but I feel like my age may hold me back from my work getting accepted and my lack of connections with the academia again due to my age.

I have done a lot of research pertaining to the pros and cons of publishing in arXiv, I have noticed far too much negativity about it but since I am far younger than most researchers, would it actually raise my stature by showing my knowledge and interest at a young age and build my future opportunities in Academic grounds or is it more likely to tarnish it?

If it may tarnish opportunities, could you specify on how I could avoid this?

  • 21
    arXiv isn't a journal, it's a preprint repository. Articles that appear there don't necessarily have to contain original research. People can upload anything they've written, as long as it has some scientific relevance. As you say, some people choose to upload tutorials, surveys of previous work, and such. These may be helpful to some readers but generally do not contribute to the author's academic career. – Nate Eldredge Dec 25 '14 at 1:34
  • 12
    I think most people would say putting papers/notes on the arXiv is posting not publishing. For non-research notes (at least in math), I would say something is appropriate for the arXiv if you think it will be of use to researchers. If it's just material that can be found in a textbook, it's probably not appropriate. One thing many students do is make a scientific blog, where they write up introductions or surveys to various topics. Without knowing more about your situation, I think that may be a good thing to try first. – Kimball Dec 25 '14 at 2:42
  • 24
    A good path to what? – JeffE Dec 25 '14 at 5:26
  • 7
    Keep in mind that not all arXiv papers are good. Some are brilliant, many are good but not brilliant, some are mediocre, and some are worthless garbage. So you shouldn't use unknown papers on the arXiv to calibrate your standards of quality. Instead of spending time reading more or less random papers on the arXiv, I'd try to seek out particularly good papers and learn from them. (Seek out the famous papers lots of researchers talk about. The more you read, the better a feeling you'll get for this, but citations and prizes can be an initial clue.) – Anonymous Mathematician Dec 25 '14 at 5:49
  • 3
    If you reach the point where you can write papers as good as the excellent papers you are reading, you should certainly do so. In the meantime, learning from the masters will be more productive than reading at random. – Anonymous Mathematician Dec 25 '14 at 5:51
2

Reading just arXiv or even some top journal is not likely to be very helpful.

It used to be that subscribing to a journal (or ten) was the best way to keep up.

But the subscription model is dead, few academics subscribe to journals, few publisher retain print as their primary mode of distribution, and open access publications tend to get 5 or 6 times as many citations as papers that require purchase or subscription. I presume you read arXiv primarily because it is free.

I presume you are still at high school but finding that not sufficiently challenging. I presume you have read what you school library has to offer, and need to go beyond. I presume you have looked at what's available from your local community/university.

Been there done that... I spent my high school years doing my own physics and chemistry experiments, extracting my own reagents and building my own equipment, building electronic devices and computers, programming unbeatable AI games/programs, programs to solve problems in mathematics, joining maths clubs and winning prizes in competitions, making use of university programs designed to encourage budding scientists and mathematicians... exploring my interests in the broadest possible way!

Contact the local university and talk to people there. E.g. I'm happy to take on high school students, and indeed at Flinders University we have the Australian Science and Mathematics School (years 10-12 only) on campus to facilitate just this encouragement of gifted students - but students need to be reasonably local. Even without a formal program or relationship, academics are happy to talk to high school students, and I've run courses and competitions for high school students, given work experience opportunities and summer scholarships (not exactly restricted to local, but focussed in the state and the surrounding regions that the university draws from). Sometimes I've just responded to high school kids contacting me out the blue, by working out a program for them. My university actually has a bit of a history of this, with Terry Tao being the most famous example.

What kind of program would I recommend for someone like you... I'd start out by recommending some of the classic papers, introducing you to the originators of the seminal ideas of the field, making sure you had the basics first hand - not via the Chinese whispers of arXiv, review papers or textbooks. Review papers are often written by PhD students as part of the process of organizing their ideas - it gives them a free publication before they done any significant work on their own. It also gets them lots of citations, and some people have an h-index that is mainly about their ability to write review papers or text books. But yes, if there was a particularly good review paper or text book, I'd recommend it - unfortunately for my research area there are no good text books I can use, although I do encourage students to dip into some of those that are around - but my research oriented courses would have at least a dozen original sources of information, and perhaps half a dozen texts or reviews. This leads to an idea from Information Retrieval... Hubs and Authorities.

You've probably heard of Brin & Page's PageRank, which became the basis of Google's ranking based on how much pages linked to each other - it is closely related to singular values/vectors, looking at relatedness of pages in a symmetric way. But an earlier approach (Kleinberger's HITS/CLEVER) developed around the same time distinguished between the source and target of links, distinguishing hubs (sources of lots of links) and authorities (targets of lots of links) - these relate to the left and right eigenvectors.

What you need to find for your field is the hubs and authorities. A hub might be a review paper, or a website or society that coordinates the research area. The authorities are the people/papers that developed the seminal ideas and everyone cites. Always go to the source, cite the earliest and latest works in their developmental path. Look for the citations of that work (on Google and Google scholar, concentrating on relevant papers with hints like filetype:pdf and/or site:edu.* | site:edu | site:ac.* to get the papers by academics and find where the open access versions are lurking). A relationship with a university with relevant subscriptions would also allow you free access to IEEE, Springer etc. But all major publishers now allow people to archive preprints or postprints of their papers for free access - and this is what arXiv should be used for where allowed, but sometimes this permission is restricted to authors' own websites, or their employers'.

There are two ways to explore the field - and you can start from a single of interest. You can try to go deep and specific (citations of and by that paper). You can also go broad and applied (citations of the citations). Modern citation analysis is closely related to PageRank/HITS/CLEVER, and your library may have tools to help.

2

It's great to get involved in these types of things at a young age. Before I say anything else: don't stop - be curious, but don't be curious to impress people. I was exactly like you. But don't let that get in your head. There are literally students in their teens working to cure cancer and have had publications. That proves how smart they are. You need to do the same.

Actually I have indeed seen many people get "pre-print" published and not get it published anywhere else.

If you want to get published, Look for a journal/conference with a double-blind reviewer process (that way they won't know that you are from high school). Next, do a lot of readings in the area you wish to publish in. You need to understand the lingo of the field immensely before publishing in it (not just ten or a hundred; honestly, I would spend countless days reading papers - you MUST absorb everything in the field).

This is coming from a guy who worked as a research assistant while in high school. In fact, I know several friends who were in high school when they got their first publication; one was at an IEEE conference.

Another route, would be to look out for the Intel Science Fair or the Google Science Fair to show case your work. I'd highly recommend looking into those.

As one of the other posters said, professors usually love talking to bright students - But, they are looking for bright, humble students (not people who will waste their time) - So be careful!

0

Innovation in computer science isn't restricted to journals; much innovation happens on internet forums. The Bitcoin whitepaper, for example, was first published (pseudonymously, too!) on The Cryptography Mailing List, not in a computer science journal. (For a collection of all the writings of the Bitcoin inventor on that forum, see The Book of Satoshi.)

Why are you afraid of submitting to arXiv.org? There is no age restriction for authors! All you need to submit an article there is a reference from someone else in the field. If you can't find a reference to post or arXiv.org, try viXra, which accepts papers arXiv might not.

Search for and read open-access

My suggestion: Communicate with as many people in the field, such as via online computer science forums, share your ideas with them, and ask for their criticism of your ideas.

  • 3
    viXra is almost never a good suggestion for anyone looking to be taken seriously later on. Sure, being young would mean that people would probably not hold it against you, but that would require them to notice that it was done while young. – Tobias Kildetoft Jun 28 '17 at 18:43
  • @TobiasKildetoft Worse than posting a paper on an internet forum? – Geremia Jun 28 '17 at 20:00
  • @TobiasKildetoft Also, one can publish pseudonymously on viXra. (Also: viXra, unlike arXiv, embeds Disqus on each article's page so people can discuss the article.) – Geremia Jun 28 '17 at 20:09
  • 1
    Yes, worse than posting pretty much anywhere else. If someone posts it some random place I would find it slightly odd. If someone posts on viXra my immediate assumption is that the work is of insufficient quality to be endorsed for arXiv. This might be incorrect in specific cases, but it is usually the case. – Tobias Kildetoft Jun 28 '17 at 20:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.