"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qVdTb.2981$bp1.71559 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> Have you considered perhaps circumventing
> the entire peer-review process and publishing
> it as a book?
I've tried. It's hard to do when one has
spent his life doing the work, and when
one has attained only a B. S. Degree,
and when what one has to say 'contra-
dicts' the universally-accepted positions.
Last time I tried, the Agent I'd contacted
gave AoK to her high school Daughter
to review :-]
I'd try again, but I'm $-broke, and want
to use what I've left to just Do Science.
[I do Hope that, through such, someone
already Established will say to someone
in Publication, "Give this guy's work a
> Generally most people save their more
> "creative" and novel ideas for that avenue
> of discourse (i.e. Straussman, Eccles,
> Edelman, etc.).
They're all Established, so, when they offer
something for Publication, their being
Established opens the doors for them.
> The major difficulty will be finding the
> appropriate publisher, however. I am aware
> of a few firms that would probably consider
> publishing your ideas. (Obviously assuming
> that the data is coherent and correct).
The data has been in the Literature for
> Have you ever contacted people in the
> certain areas of science to perhaps collaborate
> on some of the concepts you are trying to
Hundreds of times. I'm "nobody" to anybody :-]
> (I'm sure you have.... This process can be
> quite unnerving) I understand that it is
> probably quite difficult for you to contact
> people in academic circles, since there
> really is a cleavage between academia and
> non-academia circles. (A cleavage that I
> think is completely absurd and self-limiting).
It's a =Catch-22=.
Everybody 'thinks' that, if anyone actually
had anything to say, they'd already be in
Academia. So everyone presumes that
anyone who is not already in Academia
can't have anything to say that's worth
> However, the reality is that your credentials,
> where you work (or teach), and what
> journals you publish in are all factors that
> matter within this community. (think of the
> stupidity that having impact factors for journals
> really are.
There's an example - I don't know what
"impact factors" are. I just read the "Instruc-
tions to Authors".
> I have read many awful studies published
> in Neuron, PNAS, Nature, and Science).
The only thing that actually 'bothers' me is
seeing the same stuff Published over and
over again, always without mutual cross-
reference, which demonstrates that folks
just aren't reading.
> Colleague, publishing and grant review
> is as much a social process then it is a
> scientific one.
> Unfortunately, sometimes more emphasis
> is placed on the social aspects rather than
> scientific merit.
I watched the =Biography= Series' episode
on Newton the other 'day'. Early-on, Newton's
work was so ridiculed that he decided not to
try to get it published for twenty years after-
Then he broke-through, and the rest is
He was an Established Academician through-
out all of this, though.
> Just a consideration and suggestion. I still
> wouldn't mind reading the original theories
> that you keep on referencing in your
And I would like everyone to have the oppor-
tunity to read them.
It's a bit of a 'naightmare' - watching myself
grow old, while I await the opportunity to
do a Young-Man's Work.
I thought all one had to do is Solve-the-Problem,
and the doors would open.
Joke's on me :-]
ken [k. p. collins]
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BvdTb.5744$jH6.305 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...> > "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns948183AB2CD2CBilZ0rhotmailcom at 126.96.36.199...> > > [...]
> > [...]