Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 51 posts

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

#41
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This.

If you work in the field you know the 10-100 people who provide most expertise and you can build trust relationships with them by delivering interesting thoughts and then get their feedback on These ideas. That's the healthy approach. And if you work hard and the stuff you do is reasonable you will also become known in these circles.

Also technology can help weed out the complete b.s., see HN or Stackoverflow for examples on that.

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

#42
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This. If you work in the field you know the 10-100 people who provide most expertise and you can build trust relationships with them by delivering interesting thoughts and then get their feedback on These ideas. That's the healthy approach. And if you work hard and the stuff you do is reasonable you will also become known in these circles. Also technology can help weed out the complete b.s., see HN or Stackoverflow f…

But this is what peer review is - sending it to the people in my field for their feedback.

It’s just set up formally so you don’t need to ask everyone individually and there is (an attempt at) the feedback being blind so that people who are unpopular don’t get penalised.

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

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s literally what peer review is - but set up as a system to make it easier on everyone.

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

#44
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s literally what peer review is - but set up as a system to make it easier on everyone.

No it's not. Peer review is often done by people have have no clue about what you're doing. And even if they do, not many are motivated to make effort to provide a good review. Source: I received comments from 4 reviewers for my last paper, and not a single one provided any useful feedback (paper's accepted). Two of them simply copy-pasted sentences from the abstract and called it a day.

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

#45

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…

Sorry for the delay; a few unexpected things came up. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.

> 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.

This is an interesting point because I see both sides of it. Brevity can lead to opacity in some cases; however, I agree brevity's a good ideal (in whatever sense brevity is reasonable).

> - viii & xiii @ on page 3, xvi @ page 4 should either be in main body (if important, they don't look it), or deleted.

Agreed, I'll move those to the main body.

> 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.

Agreed, I'll move the commands to the appendix.

> - Think about using a template like [1]. > - Reduce your font size to 10pt please.

Thanks, I do like the compactness. Draft: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/freeradical13/ValueBasedPr...

> - 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.

I do like the double columns but I'll think about this.

> - 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?

I didn't think about that. I'm not sure why I decided to do that, but I agree and I'll remove those.

> 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.

Yeah, I had to use `\raggedbottom` for a nice flow. I'll try the more classic way.

> 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.

Makes sense.

> 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.

I hadn't considered sub-sections. I'll try those out.

> 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!

As far as I could tell, not much, or very orthogonal, but I've seen this feedback multiple times, so I'll do my best.

> 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.

That makes sense and I'll remove that huge paragraph. I think it's worthy of highlighting, but best for the appendix. I do wish academic writers would more often quote what they found most relevant from critical papers instead of just using obscure citations.

I'll be away for a few days, but I'll integrate this feedback soon. Thank you very much, again. I'll post an updated draft here when finished, or feel free to email me (see my bio) if you'd rather get a push then pull (and I totally understand if I never hear from you again). If you ever need help with anything, please let me know.

Cheers!

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

#46
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s literally what peer review is - but set up as a system to make it easier on everyone.

No it's not. Peer review is often done by people have have no clue about what you're doing. And even if they do, not many are motivated to make effort to provide a good review. Source: I received comments from 4 reviewers for my last paper, and not a single one provided any useful feedback (paper's accepted). Two of them simply copy-pasted sentences from the abstract and called it a day.

> Peer review is often done by people have have no clue about what you're doing.

That's not how I have ever seen peer review done by a reputable conference or journal. Why would they be reviewers if they didn't know the topic?

What do you think the word 'peer' means?

In my field the people I'd ask informally for comment are exactly the same people who would peer review my paper.

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

#47
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Peer review is often done by people have have no clue about what you're doing. And even if they do, not many are motivated to make effort to provide a good review. Source: I received comments from 4 reviewers for my last paper, and not a single one provided any useful feedback (paper's accepted). Two of them simply copy-pasted sentences from the abstract and called it a day.

> Peer review is often done by people have have no clue about what you're doing. That's not how I have ever seen peer review done by a reputable conference or journal. Why would they be reviewers if they didn't know the topic? What do you think the word 'peer' means? In my field the people I'd ask informally for comment are exactly the same people who would peer review my paper.

The word “peer” means a random name from the references section in my paper, picked by the editors who themselves are very unlikely to be familiar with my area. Out of 50 references, I think only 5-10 are able to review my work.

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

#48
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s literally what peer review is - but set up as a system to make it easier on everyone.

No it's not. Peer review is often done by people have have no clue about what you're doing. And even if they do, not many are motivated to make effort to provide a good review. Source: I received comments from 4 reviewers for my last paper, and not a single one provided any useful feedback (paper's accepted). Two of them simply copy-pasted sentences from the abstract and called it a day.

I've had a similar experience lately and it's frustrating. Literally 1 of 9 reviewers gave meaningful feedback. The rest either had no comment or such vague comments to be useless. Other published papers had comments that just regurgitated the abstract in an effort (I assume) to demonstrate they read the paper. I really wonder if many reviewers just "check the box" so they can say they review for X Journal

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

#49

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…

I've integrated your feedback here: https://github.com/freeradical13/ValueBasedPrioritization/ra...

I tried to let the figures and tables float but I disliked the strange spacing that resulted. I also tried putting them at the top and it was very hard to follow.

Thanks again for your very thoughtful feedback!

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

#50

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).

The biggest problem with this paper, as a published scientist, is that I read the abstract and had no idea what your paper was about. Your abstract needs to be more substantial, and cover a) the problem you're addressing, b) the approach you took, and c) the degree to which you succeeded.

Thanks, I've tried to expand the abstract.
Post reply on HN