5 ms·

This is probably a stupid question but with the internet as a distribution method is there anything stopping someone from doing their research independently and

This is probably a stupid question but with the internet as a distribution method is there anything stopping someone from doing their research independently and publishing on their own? I am sure if you are doing quality work you would still be able to get a hold of a professor somewhere who would be interested in working with you. Of course this would not apply to situations where there is lab equipment involved but I am thinking of the perspective of math, computer science, etc. where the work can be done on any commodity computer.

coltonv 8y ago
A friend of mine just told me she's going back to school for a doctorate despite being a successful researcher at an Ivy league school. Basically if she wants to run a lab or lead projects with good funding, she needs the title, even if she doesn't learn much along the way.
mathgenius 8y ago
Not a stupid question at all. History is littered with examples of major scientific discoveries that went completely ignored because the discoverer was not associated with a prestigious institution, or some other reputable platform. > quality work So what? There is no shortage of quality work. If someone really wants to make it as an outsider (or even an insider) I would suggest spending some time on youtube watching videos about how to make it in hollywood. It is much the same: fashion-driven, full of bean-counters, whats the next hot thing, who do you know, are you fun to work with, etc. etc. People have this idea that science is the objective search for truth. But this is just a small part of what is going on.
- zbentley 8y ago
  > History is littered with examples of major scientific discoveries that went completely ignored Citations please
mattkrause 8y ago
It would be rough to go it alone. Research is probably a bit more social than most people imagine. Nothing pokes a hole in a 'brilliant' idea like bouncing it off a colleague, and at the same time, you often need an outside perspective to decide if something is a breakthrough or dead-end. Research groups often have a bunch of informal knowledge: a technique that sounds simple may have some subtle pitfalls; one that looks complicated might be really easy to apply in specific situations. Some published results, while maybe not wrong per se, are less generalizable or harder to replicate than the papers claim. A lot of this knowledge hasn't made it into the formal literature, but is very easy to pick up over coffee. If you want people to read your papers (or fund your proposals), they need to be written in a way that the conventions of your field: how much detail is needed for various steps, what can you claim based on your results (and what shouldn't you claim), etc. Grad students usually learn these conventions by writing with senior people. If your end goal is to learn this stuff from a professor, there's already a pathway for that: go to grad school! If your ideas were amazing, you could collaborate with one, but you're going to be competing with the prof's actual trainees for his time/attention, which will make it hard for you to get on the prof's radar to begin with.

coltonv 8y ago

A friend of mine just told me she's going back to school for a doctorate despite being a successful researcher at an Ivy league school. Basically if she wants to run a lab or lead projects with good funding, she needs the title, even if she doesn't learn much along the way.

mathgenius 8y ago

Not a stupid question at all. History is littered with examples of major scientific discoveries that went completely ignored because the discoverer was not associated with a prestigious institution, or some other reputable platform. > quality work So what? There is no shortage of quality work. If someone really wants to make it as an outsider (or even an insider) I would suggest spending some time on youtube watching videos about how to make it in hollywood. It is much the same: fashion-driven, full of bean-counters, whats the next hot thing, who do you know, are you fun to work with, etc. etc. People have this idea that science is the objective search for truth. But this is just a small part of what is going on.

zbentley 8y ago
> History is littered with examples of major scientific discoveries that went completely ignored Citations please

mattkrause 8y ago

It would be rough to go it alone. Research is probably a bit more social than most people imagine. Nothing pokes a hole in a 'brilliant' idea like bouncing it off a colleague, and at the same time, you often need an outside perspective to decide if something is a breakthrough or dead-end. Research groups often have a bunch of informal knowledge: a technique that sounds simple may have some subtle pitfalls; one that looks complicated might be really easy to apply in specific situations. Some published results, while maybe not wrong per se, are less generalizable or harder to replicate than the papers claim. A lot of this knowledge hasn't made it into the formal literature, but is very easy to pick up over coffee. If you want people to read your papers (or fund your proposals), they need to be written in a way that the conventions of your field: how much detail is needed for various steps, what can you claim based on your results (and what shouldn't you claim), etc. Grad students usually learn these conventions by writing with senior people. If your end goal is to learn this stuff from a professor, there's already a pathway for that: go to grad school! If your ideas were amazing, you could collaborate with one, but you're going to be competing with the prof's actual trainees for his time/attention, which will make it hard for you to get on the prof's radar to begin with.