h a l f b a k e r yIdea vs. Ego
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
During the 20th century, one of the most influential
mathematicians
was Nicolas Bourbaki.
Nicolas Bourbaki, however, was not a person. He was a
pusedonium
for a group of French mathematicians who wrote and published
papers collectively.
Now.
The HalfBakery is one of intellectually
richest non-academic sites
on
the entire webternet. Occasionally (well, sometimes. Well, OK,
it
could happen) discussions here are actually meaningful and
relevant,
and include one or more (or fewer) persons who actually know
what
they are talking about. In a minority of cases, the discussions
actually lead somewhere.
So.
Most academic journals publish theoretical (ie, non-experimental)
papers,
either exclusively (in 'theoretical' disciplines like sociology, though
I
use the word 'discipline' loosely here), or alongside experimental
papers (for instance, in biology, physics, chemistry...). Some of
these are full papers, others are opinion pieces.
It ought to be possible to take some of the discussions that grow,
like moss on a bolting horse, in ideas here on the HB, and beat
them
into shape as papers and submit them to peer-reviewed journals.
98% of them will be rejected by the editor (98% of all papers are
rejected by the editor), but a few will turn out to be publishable
in
half-decent journals.
Imagine seeing "Theoretical considerations on reactionless impulse
devices" in PhysicsB, or "Considerations on brain/machine
interfaces"
in J. Neurophys.!
You're probably thinking that anyone who survived the editor's
shredder would get slaughtered by the referees, but you'd be
amazed
at some of the stuff that gets through.
We can definitely get it in here
http://math.rejecta.org/
[mouseposture, Apr 27 2011]
Or save effort, and submit here
http://www.universalrejection.org/
[mouseposture, Apr 27 2011]
http://www.atlaspress.co.uk/theLIP/
Publish here - one of my favourite places. [xenzag, Apr 27 2011]
An interesting idea
Reptomobile
rdv: use reptiles instead of horses because when you're not using them they're dormant, especially in the winter. Of course *modern* reptiles probably won't do the trick... [FlyingToaster, Apr 29 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
//but you'd be amazed at some of the stuff that get through.// |
|
| |
I was when I got published -but then they were only conferences... |
|
| |
I would love to participate, if my shouting "NO!" all the time would add anything. |
|
| |
Does anyone have to be French?
...and I don't get //one or fewer//. |
|
| |
That would require a relaxation of the rules regarding "theory" and "research should be done" to disinclude "serious" works of same from m-f-d'ing. |
|
| |
But hey, I still think the earliest tool was actually a scrunchie. (And there may be otherwise-ignored evidence near an exhumed skeleton.) |
|
| |
I can see this contributing meaningfully to the advancement of human knowledge, and certainly there are occasionally great minds resident here. Monsiuer Demipain would make fascinating contributions to academia. |
|
| |
Of course, we would have the resist the temptation to re-enact the Sokal affair. On reflection, that seems the most difficult part of the enterprise. |
|
| |
(Assuming we wish to resist it.) |
|
| |
I said "pusedonium". You're not listening loud enough. |
|
| |
//That would require a relaxation of the rules ....// |
|
| |
You're partly right. I imagine that there would need to be
some sort of off-bakery forum where discussions could be
continued and beaten into shape, and disturb the well-
ordered normality of the Ha...no, wait... |
|
| |
([po], a pusedonium is a type of wall-mounted gothic mirror
with candle-holders. The Bourbaki group used to hold their
meetings and write papers sitting underneath it.) |
|
| |
[MB] quit shouting, you little puse. I'd be a goth but I hate the shade of lipstick. |
|
| |
Better than being a big pseud. |
|
| |
//"serious" works of same from m-f-d'ing// |
|
| |
This anecdote is completely off-topic: |
|
| |
My son's Cub Scout pine-car derby race, (he took 2nd place), was held at the volunteer fire department in the small city of Meadow. |
|
| |
Being property of the Meadow Fire Department, all of the neatly arrayed folding metal chairs had "MFD" stenciled on the backs. |
|
| |
I stood in the back, and gazed over the seated crowd of parents and laughed maniacally (softly chuckled maniacally to myself) as I envisioned Mother Nature marking these soft and bloated social animals as "Marked-for-deletion". |
|
| |
oh, and what [21Q] said. [+] |
|
| |
The problem is, I suspect once you condensed the entire discussion down in to the formal paper it would be very short and repetitive: |
|
| |
1. It doesn't work in (theory/practice). |
|
| |
1.1 because of the laws of (conservation of energy / gravitation / thermodynamics) |
|
| |
1.2 beause of (friction / wind resistance / insufficently advanced technology / human behavior / economics / legal liability) |
|
| |
2. It still doesn't work no matter how many times you repeat your base arguments. |
|
| |
3. It still doesn't work even if you make up your own laws of physics, unless you can demonstrate those laws have validity. |
|
| |
4. Appeals to (magic / genetic engineering / your uncle Ralph) don't help either. |
|
| |
Yes, [MechE], undoubtedly true in many cases. But out of
the many hundreds of ideas (well, postings at least), there
are a handful which contain enough nuggets of reasoned
argument to act as the starting point of a paper. |
|
| |
//half-decent journals// Playboy? |
|
| |
there is very solid scientific merit in discrediting an idea. |
|
| |
No relaxing of the //research should be done// rule would
be required, since there's no prohibition against ideas
proposing specific experiments, or detailed programs of
experimentation. Only ideas that merely identify a field
of study, nu? |
|
| |
//there is very solid scientific merit in discrediting an
idea// Hardest kind of paper to publish: odds are, the
reviewers'll be proponents of that idea. |
|
| |
Consider the difficulty of writing, revising, strategizing re:
choice of journal and suggested reviewers, wrestling with
the deranged formatting demands of the journal's online
submission system, chewing ones fingernails, licking ones
wounds and/or frothing at the mouth after the first set of
reviews, revising, resubmitting, repeat ad lib or ad
neauseum, whichever comes first. Now multiply by 50
(the expected number of submissions, according to [MB]
required to get one paper into print). |
|
| |
I used to believe the stringency of the peer review process
was related to its effectiveness in separating intellectual
wheat from chaff. No longer. Even when it's very hard to
get past the filter, the stuff that does get past is only
marginally better than the stuff that doesn't. |
|
| |
But [+] because I recognized the reference in the title,
and enjoyed feelling smug about that. And also because I
want to nominate [Vernon] to draft and revise the
manuscripts, while the rest of us edit. |
|
| |
By publishing in journals you can gain prestige and credibility, but the information is generally locked up behind the publisher's copyright paywall (admittedly there are exceptions under the banner of "open access journals"). |
|
| |
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is "I like my ideas like I like my women - free and easy". Leave the journals to the boffins. |
|
| |
//"I like my ideas like I like my women - free and easy". // |
|
| |
Don't forget to mention -- on the Internet. |
|
| |
//"I like my ideas like I like my women - free and easy". //
- and mindful of the need for proper spelling and grammar, of course. |
|
| |
See last link for London Institute of Pataphysics. |
|
| |
//Pataphysics//, [Maxwell]. Quizzical. Careful with that hammer. |
|
| |
I nominate the <linked> idea "Reptomobile" |
|
| |
"On using vat-grown dinosaurs as an economical and eco-friendly replacement for many modes of transportation's motive power" |
|
| |
Will these articles turn up in a PubBread search? |
|
| |
I suggest "Considerations and Reconsiderations of Proposed Vacuum Blimp Technologies" as the title for the first attempt. But am not sure what journal to submit to. |
|
| |