You need to specify your field. What's your article about? Different fields do things entirely differently, and short of publishing in Nature journals are very specific to their fields.
Here's my draft article: https://github.com/freeradical13/ValueBasedPrioritization/ra... I'm not really sure what field I'm targeting, so I was hoping people would note their favorite open access journals and I could investigate (and I also thought a more generic list would be generally interesting to all the HN folk).
Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to be harsh, but it's hard to see how your article is publishable in its current form. An academic paper is a kind of conversation between experts. You need to describe the problem you're exploring, state what others have done in the area, and finally explain how you are contributing to the problem and show that your contribution is novel. What you're writing about reads like a combination of philosophy…
That's not harsh, it's realistic; thanks. The conversation is probably mostly a part of the field of Positive Psychology and Meaning in Work literature, a summary of which I cite (Martela and Steger); however, when researching the field (I probably read about 50 academic articles), I didn't see any discussion about value theory (in the realm of philosophy). I have a connection to one of the researchers and maybe I ca…
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#23Publishing to arXiv [1][2] is your best bet in the short term. - Free - Lots of subject areas (not just computer sci.) - People may cite your work - People may offer feedback You do need to get endorsed first though [4] (as another comment mentions). However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published, you need to start looking around at conferences. They're usually easier to get something through, as they tend t…
So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? It should be a means to achieve something else. Just for the challenge?
I mean besides arXiv there are many ways you can get your knowledge out there if you want to give people free (or even paid) access to it. This will also create a lot of Feedback if it's the least bit interesting.
If you want your knowledge to generate new products and companies you will also find that Startups nowadays don't wait for peer review before they launch.
So the only practical reason I can see is if you want to get funding. And Then you use the funding to create more papers. To… well… get more funding.
TL;DR: If you think about that you want to have "proper" peer review meaybe you should spend some time thinking about what you actually want to achieve and if there aren't better ways to get there.
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#24Publishing to arXiv [1][2] is your best bet in the short term. - Free - Lots of subject areas (not just computer sci.) - People may cite your work - People may offer feedback You do need to get endorsed first though [4] (as another comment mentions). However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published, you need to start looking around at conferences. They're usually easier to get something through, as they tend t…
> However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published. So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? It should be a means to achieve something else. Just for the challenge? I mean besides arXiv there are many ways you can get your knowledge out there if you want to give people free (or even paid) access to it. This will also create a lot of Feedback if it's the least bit interesting. If you want your know…
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#25You need to specify your field. What's your article about? Different fields do things entirely differently, and short of publishing in Nature journals are very specific to their fields.
Here's my draft article: https://github.com/freeradical13/ValueBasedPrioritization/ra... I'm not really sure what field I'm targeting, so I was hoping people would note their favorite open access journals and I could investigate (and I also thought a more generic list would be generally interesting to all the HN folk).
0) Golden rules:
- Readability & formatting matters.
- Know your audience.
- Context matters.
- Brevity is best.
- Be clear & concise.
- Abstract, General Intro, Aims, Background/Previous work, Method, Results, Conclusions, Future work => In that order.
- Most important: Nothing goes into the main body unless it makes a tangible, useful & clear contribution.
Some of the best papers are the shortest ones: I can read, understand and explain it to someone else in 1 hour. Among the worst are the 25 pagers that take me 2 days to realise that they aren't useful to me.
1) Footnotes
You aren't commenting code. If it doesn't go in the main text, why is it even there? It is distracting away from the important part - the main body of text.
It either lives in the main text body, a reference or the appendix. If it doesn't live there, then maybe footnote (e.g. a url to some very specific data you trained against).
Get very delete happy with them. For example:
- viii & xiii @ on page 3, xvi @ page 4 should either be in main body (if important, they don't look it), or deleted.
- Things like python commands should just get dumped in the appendix. No footnote / reference. A blanket "you can see all the commands used along with descriptions in the appendix". I'm going to look at what is in the appendix anyway. Because I'm a pedantic academic.
2) Formatting:
- Think about using a template like [1].
- Reduce your font size to 10pt please.
- If you are going to be very maths heavy, think about moving to a single column style. I, personally, find it makes it easier to read eqns and to follow their logic. Currently I have to jump from around the page and keep getting lost.
- For sections 5 & 6: Stop putting something in bold every paragraph. Bold is only to highlight when it's really important. The name of something is not really important. Prefer italics over bold, but even use that sparingly. How difficult was it to focus on reading this paragraph when the words keep changing shape?
3) Graphs & Tables
Graphs & Tables exist at the top of a page. That's the only place they live if they live in the main body. They don't have to be on the same page as where you refer to them, and you can group them together. Otherwise, appendix that stuff.
Else you'll to end up with blank space (like end of page 4 & 5) and formatting headaches later on.
You haven't done your results discussion part yet... When you do, make sure you don't talk about every single table/graph. Only talk about the results that are important. Otherwise it's guff that will bore your audience.
4) Structure:
You have so many sections that I need a table of contents to work out where I am. For a 10-15 pager, that's silly. Learn to love subsections. Especially those early parts.
5) Intro & Background work:
I have no idea what previous work this relates to. Is there previous work in the field? If so, talk about it. Talk about how you're improving it. Talk about what the context of this paper is.
Don't know what the context is? Then you better find out... People will ask!
6) Quotations
This seems like a technical paper, not an English lit assignment. If you directly quote anything, let alone a whole paragraph, it better blow my mind. I am afraid page 3, column 2 does not. Remove it. Just reference anything like that. If people want/need to know, they will read it too.
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#26Open access journals by definition are almost never free/minimal cost - the idea is the the author's are paying more of the costs associated with publication, not less. But in return, your article can be read or accessed by anyone. If you want to fork over 5k, I would recommend PLOS ONE as a major, well recognized open access journal that takes the "publish anything with scientific merit" approach. If you do not want…
That's a very helpful summary, thanks. From another comment, it seems arXiv requires academic affiliation or endorsement: https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement Are there any others?
If you already know somebody in the academic community, it would probably be better to try them first. But if not, it appears that ArXiv etiquette allows cold-emailing people... they just ask you not to blast requests out to mass numbers of people simultaneously.
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#27Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#28Publishing to arXiv [1][2] is your best bet in the short term. - Free - Lots of subject areas (not just computer sci.) - People may cite your work - People may offer feedback You do need to get endorsed first though [4] (as another comment mentions). However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published, you need to start looking around at conferences. They're usually easier to get something through, as they tend t…
> However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published. So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? It should be a means to achieve something else. Just for the challenge? I mean besides arXiv there are many ways you can get your knowledge out there if you want to give people free (or even paid) access to it. This will also create a lot of Feedback if it's the least bit interesting. If you want your know…
Just like flat earth or anti-vaxer theories on YouTube, incorrectly published work could be damaging and dangerous.
Getting peer-reviewed & published legitimizes the research work. It has been verified by a panel of experts.
Good for those start ups. I can't wait to attack all their Deep Learning APIs [1].
Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#29Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, if you want "proper" peer reviewed & published. So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? It should be a means to achieve something else. Just for the challenge? I mean besides arXiv there are many ways you can get your knowledge out there if you want to give people free (or even paid) access to it. This will also create a lot of Feedback if it's the least bit interesting. If you want your know…
Absolutely. None of the modern advancements in knowledge and understanding involve the waste of time known as "peer-review". See http://timecube.2enp.com/ .
There are multiple fields that have routed around peer review; everything that works on preprints and working papers. It takes more than two years to get an Economics paper published. If it took that long for things to get eyeballs progress would be exceedingly slow.
Peer review may have some good points but it certainly isn’t necessary to modern advancements in knowledge and understanding.