posted on Aug, 27 2003 @ 09:30 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit795
But there is just one msnbc article and one from time. The rest linked to from the website are a.o. sciam, nature & newscientist.
Those are actually third and fourth level sources of information and will quote studies done elsewhere. If you're in college, hie thyself up to the
library and ask to see the journals... that's where all the new stuff is published.
Or it's presented at a symposium (so it'll be published like that) or presented at a conference (and published in the conference "proceedings.")
I'm not trying to be tacky, here, only educational. I'm getting several papers lined up for publication already, and I'm learning how this
academic game is played. It's pretty brutal and very hard to get published like that. They stick you under a spotlight and people with a lot of
degrees and lots of research will pick your papers apart.
I just had to rewrite one of my experimental design proposals, in fact, because the research idea was okay but it didn't have a properly
But the most extraordinary stuff do come from the most unusual places.
True, but in the sciences (as someone has said) if this wonderful theory was true, you'd have professors (if it's an undergraduate) or teachers or
colleagues writing about it already and promoting this guy's work.
The research I mentioned above is actually springboarding off another student's (as yet unpublished) doctoral dissertation -- but even though it's
not published, his study has been published and talked about. The first thing that happens with a neat and "probably true" theory is that EVERYBODY
wants to go play with it! The fact that nobody's playing with his theory is, as someone else pointed out, a pretty good indication that it's
someone with no background and no real high-level understanding who has a Great Idea.