Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#31

Post by dijksterhuis »

barry-cotter wrote: post #30
mcguire wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. None of the modern advancements in knowledge and understanding involve the waste of time known as "peer-review". See http://timecube.2enp.com/ .

We know peer review is unnecessary for quality and progress in science because it only became a standard after WWII. Einstein published one peer reviewed paper. 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 exceeding…

That one economics paper, as an example, could have made one seemingly innocuous assumption that might be overlooked by later work.

Let's say a paper that relies on the preprint take that assumption for granted. And then another paper references that one. And again. And again.

Then the fifth paper gets adopted by a government in some esoteric policy, which causes their economy to implode.

May not be necessary to just publish "stuff", but it is necessary to mitigate against the dangers of invalid assumptions.

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#32

Post by freeradical13 »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #25
freeradical13 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Comments from a machine learning / AI focused PhD student. Sorry if I get a bit ridiculous below, I'm up to my neck in coffee and having one of my more "esoteric" days... 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 or…

Thanks so much! I'll review this in depth after work.

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#34

Post by Vinnl »

srouhaewaehy wrote: post #23
dijksterhuis wrote: post #13

Publishing 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…

"Proper" peer review could mean formal peer review which, indeed, has a lot of flaws. In the context of OP, however, just having any academic look at it and suggest improvements would probably already be a huge boon, regardless of potential funding or challenge: it achieves better knowledge discovery. Either form of peer review is pretty hard to obtain through arXiv.

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#35

Post by la_fayette »

jfsantos wrote: post #29

For articles on open-source software, I would recommend JOSS [1]. The organization that publishes JOSS has other journals [2], but nothing in the lines of your study. [1] https://joss.theoj.org/ [2] http://www.theoj.org/

Does this journal have a ranking or impact factor?

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#36

Post by chrisseaton »

srouhaewaehy wrote: post #23
dijksterhuis wrote: post #13

Publishing 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…

> So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays?

Because I want other people to help catch my mistakes. Why wouldn't you want that?

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#38

Post by SAS_80sTrash »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #31
barry-cotter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know peer review is unnecessary for quality and progress in science because it only became a standard after WWII. Einstein published one peer reviewed paper. 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 exceeding…

That one economics paper, as an example, could have made one seemingly innocuous assumption that might be overlooked by later work. Let's say a paper that relies on the preprint take that assumption for granted. And then another paper references that one. And again. And again. Then the fifth paper gets adopted by a government in some esoteric policy, which causes their economy to implode. May not be necessary to just…

I agree with you. Assumptions will cause a person to fail a sociology class because the majority of them are factually incorrect and anything that has the potential to cause negative consequence should be thoroughly examined before being published as valid, but if it is just an idea or a thought then I would personally write the idea as a question and send the question to those in current research.

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#39

Post by barry-cotter »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #31
barry-cotter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know peer review is unnecessary for quality and progress in science because it only became a standard after WWII. Einstein published one peer reviewed paper. 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 exceeding…

That one economics paper, as an example, could have made one seemingly innocuous assumption that might be overlooked by later work. Let's say a paper that relies on the preprint take that assumption for granted. And then another paper references that one. And again. And again. Then the fifth paper gets adopted by a government in some esoteric policy, which causes their economy to implode. May not be necessary to just…

Peer Review has not stopped the situationyou describe from occurring in multiple fields. Social Psychology is particularly bad but cancer biology isn’t great either.

——-

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

Bayer and Amgen, reported dismal results when they tried to reproduce some cancer papers. Only 25 percent of the papers Bayer examined were reproduced. Amgen was able to replicate only six out of the 53 studies it examined.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/5103048...

Plan to replicate 50 high-impact cancer papers shrinks to just 18

An ambitious project that set out nearly 5 years ago to replicate experiments from 50 high-impact cancer biology papers, but gradually shrank that number, now expects to complete just 18 studies.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-hi...

Re: Ask HN: What are the best open-access journals for non-academics to submit to?

#40

Post by p1esk »

chrisseaton wrote: post #36
srouhaewaehy wrote: post #23

Earlier 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…

> So, why would you want "proper" peer review nowadays? Because I want other people to help catch my mistakes. Why wouldn't you want that?

Just send your results or ideas to someone knowledgeable about the topic and ask their opinion.
Post reply on HN