Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 200

Thread: Journal for completely new gravitational theory

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Let's see....

    Entropic gravity
    Walking Technicolor
    CDT
    TeVeS
    Extended Higgs Sector theories
    Fischer information quantum theories
    Later Quintessence theories
    Unparticle physics
    And many more.

    You are simply wrong that new and radical theories are not welcome. Do you actually follow any physics journals? Or are you just going from the fact that your ideas are not being accepted for publication to the conclusion that no ideas are being accepted for publication?
    I saw some theories that are not testable and they were published. Mine is testable and I can’t break the ice. There must be some informal explanation to this. I can explain a lot of things but not this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,267
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I already am on the edge with all my warnings and infractions that I wouldn’t dare to post my postulates here unless I am explicitly allowed by the mods.
    Which is why I suggested asking. (Sheesh.)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,267
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    There must be some informal explanation to this. I can explain a lot of things but not this.
    You have been given several plausible explanations. Predictably, you are rejecting them ... just as you are rejecting reviewer feedback. Do you see a pattern in your behaviour?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Which is why I suggested asking. (Sheesh.)
    I will ask tomorrow.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,272
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I saw some theories that are not testable and they were published. Mine is testable and I can’t break the ice. There must be some informal explanation to this.
    Here's a suggestion - that the reviewers are correct when they say that there is something wrong with your postulates.
    If the postulates don't work, then no amount of testability will rescue inferences drawn from those postulates - it doesn't matter what the test results are, the inferences are wrong and no-one is ever going to be interested.
    Whereas apparently untestable hypotheses based on valid postulates might turn out to be testable in future, if enough people think about them.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,844
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    And yet new ideas are published every week. Journals like new ideas - indeed, that particular selection bias in scientific publishing is well known and has created a huge skew in the content of the medical literature (the area I know best).
    So that's not why your paper wasn't accepted.
    In support of that, interestingly the highest retraction rates are in high impact journals like Nature and Science, because they go out of their way to publish sensational papers. So nobody is going to reject something because it overturns ideas.
    As above, so below

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,897
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I saw some theories that are not testable and they were published. Mine is testable and I can’t break the ice. There must be some informal explanation to this. I can explain a lot of things but not this.
    There are several possibilities as to why a testable theory might be rejected without doing the tests the author of the theory regards as the required ones. And I am sure you will regard all of them as inconceivable. But that is why we have review - you are biased about your own ideas and, from experience on this board, unable to accept that they may be wrong.
    1) Your ideas are at odds with other observations in fairly trivial and simple ways
    2) Your ideas are simply not useful, scientifically, as they are a bunch of ad hoc fits
    3) Your ideas are internally logically inconsistent
    4) Your ideas based on demonstrably false postulates

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Grant, Shaula and Swift,

    You are right that the authors should consider feedback carefully and improve their papers. That's true and most authors do that as they seriously want their ideas to be consistent with observations and logically consistent too. On balance the middle ground in this debate seems about right

    A: Philippeb8, you said "but nowadays the system tightened the screws making it impossible to suggest anything radical even if the maths are right."

    and this view seems close, but could be... "but nowadays the system tightened the screws making it [almost] impossible to suggest anything radical even if the maths are right, [if you are an independent researcher]."

    ----
    B:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Maybe the system isn't biased. Maybe it is working perfectly and it is doing its job of keeping out undemonstrated nonsense.
    It probably does keep out nonsense, but it's keeping out good work too. The "perfectly" word above seems particularly complacent.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    JCAP asks for an arxiv identifier before you can submit to it. Arxiv wants your work to have been published in a reputable journal before it will be published (they won't give a list of which jounals count). So that journal is operating a "Catch 22" excluding everyone not already published. Arxiv also wants the author to have "endorsement" by a professional, which can be got, if you try (philippeb8), but is much easier to get if you are a professional with a supervisor to act as endorser. This creates a bias towards authors merely continuing a superivsor's work and against new proposals from outsiders.

    It's true that a lot of papers are rejected as they are simply too low a standard, but anything even slightly speculative is barred (for some authors), whilst others can pontificate about 26 dimensional colliding brane-worlds, or parallel universes! Why is that? Is there a bias for high level mathematical papers, even if short on real substance?
    Last edited by john hunter; 2018-Feb-25 at 09:47 AM.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,897
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    B:
    It probably does keep out nonsense, but it's keeping out good work too. The "perfectly" word above seems particularly complacent.
    It comes down to SNR. If 1 in 5 papers from academic institutions are good pieces of work (including revolutionary ideas, new theories etc) versus 1 in 100 papers from independent researchers (and from what I've seen on places like vixra and predatory publishing journals this is a generous number) you get more benefit focusing on academic institutions. Journals are not a charity, they have to make enough people find them useful to justify the cost of running them. And dealing with papers that have not been through academic QC is expensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    This creates a bias towards authors merely continuing a superivsor's work and against new proposals from outsiders.
    Of the 7 or 8 people I work with who have PhDs I know the topic of only maybe half were following on from their supervisors work. If that. Supervisors like to see their own work developed, yes. But they also like to see good science being done and new ideas coming out.

    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    It's true that a lot of papers are rejected as they are simply too low a standard, but anything even slightly speculative is barred (for some authors), whilst others can pontificate about 26 dimensional colliding brane-worlds, or parallel universes! Why is that? Is there a bias for high level mathematical papers, even if short on real substance?
    That would be because they are working towards physics theories. The debate about string theory is an active one and has been for some time. Which is why you see a lot of papers about alternatives these days. String theory looked like a promising avenue of approach built on solid mathematical principles. I have fallen out of love with it significantly since my teens (when it all seemed to promising) but the corpus of theory, technique and modelling effort behind it is still streets ahead of most of the "I have a new theory of physics that changed EVERYTHING" papers I have seen.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I will ask tomorrow.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The request was submitted today...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    Arxiv wants your work to have been published in a reputable journal before it will be published
    Arxiv is primarily a pre-print archive. It accepts submission of papers before they are published in any journal.
    Endorsement requirement
    Since January 17, 2004 arXiv has required that users be endorsed before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class.
    This is not an endorsement of the author. It is an endorsement of the first pre-print submitted to a category.

    The endorser need not be (but probably is) a professional.
    Endorsers must have authored a certain number of papers within the endorsement domain of a subject area. The number of papers depends on the particular subject area, but has been set so that any active scientist who has been working in her field for a few years should be able to endorse if her work has been submitted to arXiv and if she is registered as an author of her papers. Endorsement domains have been chosen to reflect related subject areas and ensure that it will be easy for people to find endorsements: most high-level subject areas (e.g., hep-th, cond-mat, q-bio) are currently endorsement domains, with the notable exception of physics, in which individual subject classes (e.g., phys.acc-phys, phys.med-ph) are endorsement domains. To ensure that endorsers are active members of the community, we only count papers that have been submitted between three months and five years ago.*
    This does not rule out an amateur who has authored several papers within a domain from being an endorser. There is not even an explicit requirement for the papers to have been published.

    That page emphasizes that The endorsement process is not peer review.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Feb-26 at 02:28 AM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,844
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    Some journals, but only a few, are starting the 'double blind' review system, you could consider them.
    I think that the "double blind" review system is a good thing, but I don't think it would be of much help in this case. I think ironically that double-blind peer review may actually be more helpful in stopping a different (opposite) problem, that for example a journal might be inclined to publish a strange paper by Stephen Hawking simply because it's him, in the same way that newspapers will cover even weird ideas by him because it is him. So I think that double-blinding peer review would be helpful in stopping that, but probably wouldn't be helpful for somebody who writes a paper that is based on their own ideas and has little reference to the previous literature, because the reviewers will understand that the person hasn't read the literature.
    As above, so below

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Reality Check,

    Your link was interesting but here is a quote from it

    "arXiv may give some people automatic endorsements based on subject area, topic, previous submissions, and academic affiliation. In most cases, automatic endorsement is given to authors from known academic institutions and research facilities. arXiv submitters are therefore encouraged to associate an institutional email address, if they have one, with their arXiv account (see author registration help). This will expedite the endorsement process."

    In other words, they have created an extra hurdle for independent researchers...but it's not just that - if you PM scientists and manage to get an endorsement for your paper, then submit it, arxiv can also choose to remove it. It's judged by 'volunteer moderators' who (quite possibly) also take into account the authors institution when deciding whether to remove, in a similar way to the above.

    If you appeal the removal then arxiv isn't a preprint service any more for you...it's becomes a requirement that the paper should have been published in a peer reviewed journal first. If it has been, then they also can question the quality of the journal. If you ask for a list of which journals would be acceptable, they say "we don't maintain such a list".

    So although it is possible for independent researchers to get their work published in a journal or on arxiv, it seems there is a bias - at least that's one experience and Philippeb8 has the right to hear things from all sides.

    It would be interesting (Philippeb8) to see your proposal on ATM, if allowed.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,320
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Postulate: Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.

    Therefore a postulate cannot be proven!
    Are your postulates self-evident?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Are your postulates self-evident?
    Yes of course.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,664

    Elephant In The Room

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Yes of course.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There is an elephant in the room here in this thread which no one wishes to discuss, and under the ATM rules we cannot discuss,

    The paper is available free online. Wih Philippe's permission and that of he Moderators, I will be glad to post the link.

    Remember, no ATM here. PM's work fine.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,491
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    There is an elephant in the room here in this thread which no one wishes to discuss, and under the ATM rules we cannot discuss,

    The paper is available free online. Wih Philippe's permission and that of he Moderators, I will be glad to post the link.

    Remember, no ATM here. PM's work fine.
    Do not post the link. This thread is already too much of a debate about philippeb8's ideas, and not the original question about how to publish something.

    philippeb8 has asked the Moderation Team about posting his postulates on CQ. We are discussing it. That may take sometime. If that wait stifles some aspects of this discussion, so be it. If that leaves nothing else to say, then that's fine too.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    "arXiv may give some people automatic endorsements based on subject area, topic, previous submissions, and academic affiliation. In most cases, automatic endorsement is given to authors from known academic institutions and research facilities. arXiv submitters are therefore encouraged to associate an institutional email address, if they have one, with their arXiv account (see author registration help). This will expedite the endorsement process."

    In other words, they have created an extra hurdle for independent researchers...
    "some people" does not exclude independent researchers. Independent researchers that submit papers in a subject area, topic, or have previous submissions may get automated endorsement. Of course academic affiliation does not apply to them.
    This is the endorsement requirement page. No "moderator" or "remove" in it.
    This is the arXiv moderation system
    The arXiv moderators are experts in their fields and in the types of submissions that are appropriate for their subject classifications. They evaluate based on the content of the submission and the policies of arXiv.
    arXiv moderators may recommend reclassification or removal of a submission. Reclassification is frequently suggested for subject classifications that are highly similar, in order to make sure that submissions are posted first to the most appropriate archive. Cross-lists may then be suggested for other archives that are also appropriate classifications. A submission that is cross-listed to another archive will still be announced in the mailings to the alternative archive.

    arXiv moderators will suggest the removal of a submission that violates arXiv policies in some way. Potential reasons for removal are:
    •Unrefereeable content. arXiv accepts only submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue. Papers that do not contain original or substantive research, including undergraduate research, course projects, and research proposals may be removed. Papers that contain inflammatory or fictitious content, papers that use highly dramatic and mis-representative titles/abstracts/introductions, or papers in need of significant review and revision may be removed.
    •Inappropriate format. Abstract-only submissions, presentations, book announcements, book reviews, submissions without references, calls for papers, or advertisements may be removed. We do not accept submissions with line numbers, or submissions with watermarks.
    •Inappropriate topic. While arXiv serves a variety of scientific communities, not all subjects are currently covered. Submissions that do not fit well into our current classification scheme may be removed and, where possible, redirected to a more appropriate repository.
    •Duplicated content. If a moderator notices that a user has made many very similar submissions in a short amount of time, or that a new submission is really a revision of a recent submission, the moderator may request that the user consolidate the new submission into a replacement of the previous submission. This helps ensure that arXiv is as useful as possible for all of the various communities publishing here, and it can often help the author present a more unified body of research.
    •Submission of copyrighted material. Authors must hold copyright over the entirety of the submission when the files are uploaded to arXiv. arXiv cannot accept PDFs that have been downloaded from a publisher's website and contain a copyright statement or papers that contain material written by someone who has not authorized that content to be distributed on arXiv (including comments by referees and, of course, plagiarized material).
    •Excessive submission rate. Articles submitted to arXiv must be of refereeable quality, and there is a practical limit to the rate at which appropriate, independent submissions can be produced by any one person. Moderators may request that a particular author limit his or her submission rate if this author has a history of many submissions to inappropriate areas or of doubtful refereeability.
    No "authors affiliation" there.

    If a removed paper is appealed than it is an appeal of a preprint and in no way related to whether the paper is published in a peer reviewed journal.

    arXiv has no requirement that a submitted paper be published.
    arXiv does not look at the quality of the journal in which a paper has been published.
    arXiv does not exclude or have a bias against independent researchers. An academic affiliation is optional. The contents of papers are not peer reviewed. All that an independent researcher has to do is follow common scientific practices. Write in good scholarly language (no hype). Be polite. Be careful in using copyrighted material. Write so that your work can be referred for peer review. And submit a paper that can fit one of arXiv 's subject areas (getting placed in the general physics category means that fewer people will read it).
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Feb-26 at 08:04 PM.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,491
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I already am on the edge with all my warnings and infractions that I wouldn’t dare to post my postulates here unless I am explicitly allowed by the mods.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    philippeb8 made this request to the Moderation Team

    After much discussion among the Moderation Team, we have decided that he may post his Postulates, but he may only do so in the ATM sub-forum. And, as such, all the usual rules and requirements will apply. We consider this an extraordinary allowance, since we do not usually allow ATM ideas to be presented again. The new ATM thread should focus on the Postulates and not on the general idea.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    philippeb8 made this request to the Moderation Team

    After much discussion among the Moderation Team, we have decided that he may post his Postulates, but he may only do so in the ATM sub-forum. And, as such, all the usual rules and requirements will apply. We consider this an extraordinary allowance, since we do not usually allow ATM ideas to be presented again. The new ATM thread should focus on the Postulates and not on the general idea.
    Thank you Swift. Here is the new ATM thread:
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...new-postulates

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,814
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    JCAP asks for an arxiv identifier before you can submit to it.
    I thought that is was strange that JCAP required an arxiv identifier and it turns out that this may not be the case. The JCAP Help page lists 2 ways to submit papers.
    A) Submission from the arXiv (button 'submit from arXiv')
    B) Submission via web upload (button 'upload your file')
    The first obviously needs an arxiv identifier.
    The second should not need an arxiv identifier. I say should because there is "Please check the metadata for your paper (they have been automatically downloaded from the arXiv) and edit them as necessary.". I suspect that is text copied from section A.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Is there a journal out there for “experimental and theoretical physics” which will accept completely new gravitational theories?
    I will answer my own question and this might be a useful reference for other people at the same time:
    https://scholar.google.com/citations...myastrophysics


    Regards,
    philippeb8

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,664

    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I will answer my own question and this might be a useful reference for other people at the same time:
    https://scholar.google.com/citations...myastrophysics


    Regards,
    philippeb8
    Are you proposing Scholar Google as a place to publish?

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Are you proposing Scholar Google as a place to publish?
    You're welcome to click on the link; it shows a list of astrophysics journals, sorted by their popularity.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,664

    ???

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    You're welcome to click on the link; it shows a list of astrophysics journals, sorted by their popularity.
    I have; your OP was for a place to publish; I don't think any of these journals will publish for you.

    Wha question are you trying to answer?.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    I have; your OP was for a place to publish; I don't think any of these journals will publish for you.

    Wha question are you trying to answer?.
    Publishing is an extremely slow process but one of these journals didn't reject the content of my manuscript yet so I think this is good news. Plus they don't all require a PhD to publish.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,814
    There are a lot of journals with varying credibility from prestigious to predatory. So finding one to publish any paper is not hard. You have not given evidence that any journals require a PhD to publish.
    Publication in science is not usually what people would consider an "extremely slow process". It is considered an appropriately slow process because there is peer review. What slows things down is usually interchange between the authors and peer reviewers as issues are worked out. A journal with very short times (days) between submission and publication would be thought dubious because that implies no peer review.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,320
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Postulate: ....being self-evident.
    So your postulates are self-evident? Apparently not so much.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    So your postulates are self-evident? Apparently not so much.
    They’re now hypotheses and were rewritten. I messed up previous submissions explaining the slow process. My bad.

    Usually I submit the paper without formatting it because journals all have different standards. Usually it gets rejected before they ask to reformat it but now they asked me to reformat it first before rejecting its contents. The journal in question is: “Monthly Notices ...”

    That’s why I am saying it’s good news.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,844
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Usually I submit the paper without formatting it because journals all have different standards. Usually it gets rejected before they ask to reformat it but now they asked me to reformat it first before rejecting its contents. The journal in question is: “Monthly Notices ...”
    Just a little hint, but you shouldn't submit papers without properly formatting it for the journal. Editors may take that to mean you are not really serious and will encourage them to reject it right away. Another thing: you shouldn't just submit the same paper to journal after journal without thinking about the content. For example, Monthly Notices is an astronomy or astrophysics journal, so I doubt that they would publish a paper that is purely a theoretical work on gravity. I think it would need to have some calculation of a real galaxy or something like that. You really need to submit to the journal that is most appropriate. I don't know how your paper is structured, but if it is purely theoretical (i.e., gravity works like this), then I think it would be better to submit to APJ or Physical Review D. But if you are doing calculations on actual astronomical objects, then Monthly Notices would probably be OK.
    As above, so below

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •