It is not a requirement to have a Ph.D. or be a member of some elite club to submit papers to an academic journal for publication. But you do have to do actual research. It is not enough to have a good idea. You must also do research to see if someone else came up with the same idea and cite references to related work to prove that they haven't and you aren't duplicating work already done. Then you must do experiments to prove that your idea works and that the results are actually of some value, that it solves some problem better than previous approaches.
Many online journals, especially the high impact ones, will either charge readers $30 or so to read beyond the abstract, or will charge an "open access" fee of around $3000 to make your paper freely accessible without a 1 year wait. A condition of publication is that they own the copyright and you are not allowed to publish your paper on your own website unless you pay the open access fee. Also, journals reject 50% to 90% of submissions. Don't be surprised when your brilliant work is trashed. Some conferences may have higher acceptance rates, but you have to attend the conference and pay the fees of a few hundred dollars in addition to copyright restrictions. You might wonder why anyone bothers. If you work in academia, then you are required to publish papers to advance in your career. You are also required to publish 3-4 papers to get a Ph.D. No surprise that your adviser, who needs to advance in his career, will have you co-authoring his papers in his field of research with you doing most of the work. When I was a teenager and reading about how neurons worked, I developed a model that explained how learning and memory works. I had the theory that the synapse could switch between simulating and inhibiting states in response to the firings of the input and output neurons. I came up with this idea all by myself and even wrote about it years later in a freshman psychology paper (which got a B). But I thought I was still brilliant. Years later I was shocked to discover that Hebb thought of it first, in 1949. On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > Putting aside any complaints about how the system works vs. how it ought > to: I've invented a few learning/AI algorithms, and some variants of > existing ones, too, among other things. As an "independent researcher" > myself, I'm a little clueless as to how to go about getting published. PM > suggested joining IEEE or AISB as a means to do so. Any other advice? Is > this the only route? Do these organizations provide assistance for total > newbs? > > I aced all my undergraduate CS classes, but lost my scholarship & dropped > out due to personal issues (homelessness, among other things) before I > could finish up the non-major classes required to graduate from a state-run > school, so I don't even have a formal education according to the system, > despite my rather extreme autodidacticism. Combine this lack of credentials > with a complete lack of experience and virtually no one to ask for advice > (you guys are *it* for me), and I'm not sure how to open this door. Any > help, insight, or advice would be greatly appreciated. > > > Logan wrote: > >> Maybe one day, there will be Open Science, which allows the participation >> of any being that has knowledge to contribute, (even if they didn't spend >> tens of thousands and years of their lives apprenticing.) along with Open >> Studies, where people can participate in a study by doing an experiment at >> home and posting results, and Open Journals, that actually share the >> information that science has accumulated. > > > I have a couple of friends I'm working (very slowly) with to make this a > possibility. Right now we're just a reserved domain (http://scipubs.com/), > but eventually we hope to provide a fully functional open access > publication platform, with a system that literally allows anyone to > publish. (There will, of course, be certain fundamental standards for > publication of a particular paper, primarily regarding the style.) > Journals, similar to channels on YouTube, will review papers, and access to > the list of papers reviewed and accepted by a particular journal will be > visible provided you have either paid that journal for access (we take a > cut to pay for operation costs) or the journal makes their list available > for free. (Journals may also choose to have authors pay for the review > process instead of or in addition to readers.) So, in summary: > > > 1. Anyone can publish for free. > 2. Anyone can read any article for free. > 3. The peer review process is still an effective filter for separating > the serious research from that of cranks and crooks, but this is a > value-added paid service. > > > Our hope is that with the ability to support both open access/publication > alongside the peer review process in the same platform, those who are > economically, educationally, or opportunistically disadvantaged can still > contribute to the dialog of scientific progress. Additionally, for > researchers who are part of the "in" crowd but who are pressured into > publishing only their most mainstream research, a non-reviewed paper could > provide an alternative avenue for sharing exploratory/speculative papers > without having to measure up to the same standards as for primary research > publications. > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Piaget Modeler < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Todor, thanks for Stoychev's paper on Developmental Robotics. It's >> pretty good. >> >> The answer is quite simple: >> >> Build a system and write an e-book. (Not necessarily in that order). >> >> Look at Mentifex (Arthur Murray). He's done it. No bellyaching from >> him. No complaints. He just works on his system, >> announces his new developments, and writes his book. I'm very impressed >> by his commitment. He's a model for us all. >> >> If you want to attend conferences and publish papers, join an >> organization like IEEE or AISB and submit some papers to >> a conference. Very simple. >> >> Life moves on, and because you didn't get credit for some past ideas, >> that's life. You have to let that go and make room >> for new ideas. Ensure that you don't repeat those mistakes, and ensure >> that you DO get credit for your original ideas >> in the future. >> >> The only one stopping you from being all that you can be is yourself. >> >> Be great. And let everyone know just how great you are. >> >> Cheers, >> >> ~PM. >> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-2da819ff> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/3701026-786a0853> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
