New answers tagged

2

I’m happy to assume your premise that you are not a crank and the research you generate is comparable in quality to mainstream research that gets published in peer-reviewed journals. Here’s the problem though: it’s not me you’re trying to impress. The academics whom you are hoping will “take your work seriously” are not assuming that premise. And it’s not ...


1

Ultimately, I think this comes down to where most of the good papers are. If all the best papers are in the traditional peer-reviewed academic journals, then naturally they are going to maintain credibility and outside sources are going to lack it. However, if substantial numbers of valuable papers are appearing in alternative fora (e.g., on ArXiv) then it ...


9

In mathematics, currently, it seems to me that if you have some good, interesting ideas and can present them well, and put documents on arXiv, people will look at them. I look at arXiv daily (and, also, web pages of people I know) for new things. I rarely look at on-line versions of "peer-reviewed journals", because all that stuff is a year or two ...


2

Unfortunately, "peer review" has been made the core certificate of quality for research. Not that everyone agrees with it, but this is how the community works. If you do research that can be reproduced from the preprint (mathematics, theoretical physics etc.), you might get the occasional follower of your work, but unless you have a network of ...


2

What is the purpose of all this? The goal of publishing, ultimately, is to communicate your ideas to other researchers. Peer review is supposed to help with that: to give you few more eyes to look at your work and - supposedly - ask you questions a wider audience would have upon reading your work. Side note - I must admit there is an argument barely anyone ...


2

It is possible to do what you want, but, it takes more work than going through the standard process. At one time there was no such system and people got a reputation by sending off their work to other scholars. Many had patrons who helped give them a bit of visibility. So, in actuality, the journal/publishing system is an attempt at an optimization, by ...


1

Of course, there is absolutely no harm in that. The idea is to get the attention of other researchers. And using multiple platforms will help materialise that better. In the traditional system, a submitted manuscript receives feedback from 2 or 3 peer reviewers before publication. With a preprint, other researchers can discover your work sooner, potentially ...


5

You still hold copyright to things uploaded to arXiv. You have granted them a non-exclusive license only. You retain all other rights. So, yes, the paper is yours to use as you wish. However, you can't terminate the license you have already given since it is perpetual, so you can't now give an "exclusive" license to someone else. If you transfer ...


2

You cannot complain about plagiarism unless you can show the other authors have read your paper. You can, however, say you have precedence based on the fact that your paper was completed first (or you might be able to say the results were obtained independently). If your paper is accepted it will say "received [date]" and that date would establish ...


1

Publishing pre-prints of your scientific papers gives you the following opportunities: You can confirm your authorship Your work becomes available online (so you can share it for academic or job purposes) Collaboration (you can improve your work chatting with colleagues) According to these principles, one may prefer one e-print archive to another. Here're ...


Top 50 recent answers are included