David Lynch’s complaint about scientific journals and the challenges of getting one’s work published (Physics Today, March 2006, page 14) struck a responsive chord. Lynch describes well the hoops one has to jump through to prepare a paper to the exact specifications of a journal. Such problems have discouraged me—and, I am sure, many others—from publishing worthwhile research results.
The difficulties of getting published are compounded when one is working in a contentious area with policy implications—climate change, for example. An author can face endless hassles with referees, and with editors who often openly display their prejudices in editorials.
However, I have found several workable alternatives, at least for authors who no longer must publish in the journals to gain academic promotion.
-
▸ Publishing on the arXiv server or elsewhere on the Web. This is akin to sending out preprints or internal reports. They don’t carry the prestige of established journals and may not be as widely read. But increasingly, it seems, established journals have published papers that are wrong and even fraudulent, despite the peer-review system.
-
▸ Presenting a paper at a professional conference or meeting. After approval by the session organizers—a kind of peer review—the abstract is published and can be cited as a reference. Compared to preparing a paper for journal publication, the effort is minimal. The discussion and feedback are immediate and can be quite stimulating.
-
▸ Publishing with a coauthor, preferably one who still has access to slave labor, also known as graduate students.
-
▸ Writing a book, perhaps the most satisfying way to publish new ideas. And people read them, too—especially people who disagree. I once had a researcher publish a critique of my analysis in a refereed journal, and much to my satisfaction, I later proved him wrong.
-
▸ Finally, of course, there is a letter to the editor. I don’t know about others, but I always read the letters first.
