Ask HN: Is there a way to submit academic papers online for review?

4 points by peterweyand 3 years ago | 13 comments

I have a paper I'd like submitted for review by serious phds and academics, but am outside of academia. Is there a way to submit this paper online? Thanks!

peterweyand 3 years ago |

This is the paper by the way. I haven't had anyone who has been willing to review it, I'm completely out of money and I just want to know if any of my conclusions are correct at this point. I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for review by academics per se but this is one of the more serious minded forums I've come across.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4yznf0v2e71ksw/Sep11EarlyMorning....

lemon_bottle 3 years ago |

I'm not entirely sure about it but these days, if you format your blog post and references in a specific way (APA/MLA citations, etc.), Google will consider it a scholarly article and show it in the results of Google Scholar. I'm not sure whether any academics will consider it or not, but it'll enter google scholar results and will be visible to them.

peterweyand 3 years ago | |

Thanks, I might try that!

jjgreen 3 years ago |

The usual deal would be to ask colleagues in the field, but (since that's not available) asking relevant experts on the understanding that most won't reply due to pressure of time, and that's OK. Not my field, so no proper comments from me, but

- that hand-drawn figure needs sorting

- no references?

- for a review copy, 1.5-spacing and wide margins, for a "readable" copy, rework the typography, no underlining, no ragged-right etc.

peterweyand 3 years ago | |

Yes this is a very rough preliminary draft. The lack of references is a problem, although I cite the literature in philosophy for a number or people without pulling direct quotes [Timothy Williamson on modality for example]. The paper would need to be run through LaTeX, and the charts would need to be done in LaTeX. As to your suggestion I fixed some of the formatting, but it needs a complete rework later.

As to the literature for machine learning, I currently do not understand the state of the art. My understanding of the models is that they are systems of neural networks with varying degrees of complexity, but in essence are still neural networks (without A^ as described). I would need to read more on the literature or talk to someone who has as it's a complicated field. One issue is that I don't know that there is any one right model or system of neural networks that has been shown to work - some apparently do and some don't and it's been more of an experimental approach. So who to cite? Navigating the literature may be difficult.

foothebar 3 years ago |

Not strictly for review, but for serious publishing: https://arxiv.org

peterweyand 3 years ago | |

My impression with arxiv is that it's for after the paper has been reviewed to make the information as widely as accessible as possible. I'm more interested in places that would review the paper in the first place.

foothebar 3 years ago | | |

Yes, like said. Also I did not see your first draft of writing before. First which comes to my mind when seeing it: It seems you are not referencing any existing work of scientists, which will be a large caveat for many, because that is like science works – enhance what others have done, prove your starting or side points of your arguments by citing what others found, do not do everything from scratch. Don't write about what you think something is like (e.g. NN), but prove it is like that by citing the right sources, which you have read.

awercliyuna 3 years ago |

There is a whole system put in place exactly for getting papers reviewed by (hopefully) competent experts: peer-reviewed journals. The system has many flaws, but at least in theory, that's precisely the purpose of its existence.

For most journals, submission is free and open to everyone. In particular, being an academic yourself is not a requirement. Of course, there are well-documented biases in the peer review system (some of which are indirect, like your background and writing style being different from that of the in-group). As a consequence your paper will start with a very heavy handicap.

However, since your objective is to get reviewed (not necessarily accepted/published in a prestigious journal), your objective should only be for your paper to be sent to peer reviewers. In other words, you only need to pass the first filter (the editor), which can already be a high bar for an outsider, but a much lower one than acceptance. If the reviewers then recommend rejection, then fine, at least you will get feedback because reviewers are typically requested to write a fairly detailed justifying report.

Here is a list of journals that may be relevant. Please send your manuscript to only one at a time, and only attempt another one after rejection. Simultaneous submission is regarded as very unethical.

Minds and Machines: https://www.springer.com/journal/11023

Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence: https://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/research/phil_a...

The AI Ethics Journal: https://www.aiethicsjournal.org/

Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy: https://www.omicsonline.org/scholarly/artificial-intelligenc...

Philosophies: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/philosophies

Regarding the paper itself, it is outside of my field of expertise, so I can only comment on the overall presentation... which is important if you want to convince the editor that its looks serious enough to warrant the effort of finding reviewers. I would advise removing everything from the first page except the title and abstract: the caveats, inspirations, apologies and thanks sections look unprofessional. Also, I could not find a discernible conclusion section. You do need to cite previous work (with a bibliography at the end of the paper). After you select the journal, look at a few papers published there, and emulate their structure. This will greatly improve your chances of getting past the editor and into proper peer review. (Editor rejections usually come with very limited justifications.)

Good luck!