3 ms·

Which is ironic, because self-publishing then should automatically qualify you for a PhD. In fact, I believe more people should take this approach. As far as I'

by rfgplk 2mo ago

Which is ironic, because self-publishing then should automatically qualify you for a PhD. In fact, I believe more people should take this approach. As far as I'm aware, there's no law or regulation from declaring yourself a "PhD" backed by autoresearch.

locknitpicker 2mo ago
> Which is ironic, because self-publishing then should automatically qualify you for a PhD. No. What qualifies you as a researcher is being able to output work that is accepted by your peers. Hence the peer review process is critical. You fail to meet this bar if you publish something in blogspot or even arxiv for that matter.
- tescreal 2mo ago
  A key problem is upper-level academia is rife with the same sorts of human-scale power dynamics. Petty squabbles, ideological (and ideological-flavoured) views can and do hold entire fields from time to time. It is only a particular type of tenacity that breaks up the status quo from time to time. (consider the Marvin Minsky era of AI research. A big personality can stifle an entire field). Peers aren't usually the appropriate measuring stick of merit.
  - locknitpicker 2mo ago
    > A key problem is upper-level academia is rife with the same sorts of human-scale power dynamics. You are trying too hard to come up with excuses. The paper review process is double-blind, and nothing prevents you from publishing the same work in multiple journals. If your goal is to do meaningful contributions to science then "power dynamics" are irrelevant. You do need to develop a meaningful network in the field if your goal is to collaborate with other researchers, but that's basically what everyone needs to do in any professional field.
    - tescreal 2mo ago
      Entrenched ideas have momentum. Your lone-warrior attitude is admirable if not lacking in substance. Most fields have had occasional hangups on dead ends, such as the aforementioned Minsky "symbolic > connectivist" debacle. Behaviourism in psychology. String theory. The list goes on.
- ndriscoll 2mo ago
  Eh, in theoretical fields we now have good formal verification tools so that someone publishing a code repo on their personal website is more meaningful in pretty much every way than a peer reviewed journal article. The article becomes an archaic formality. Like I get that the current social norms around "research" might not be there yet, but if they refuse to adapt, I just see that as a reason to defund "research" and start from scratch.
nathan_compton 2mo ago
I've got a PhD in Physics and I have to say that the quality of most "self published" physics is very low, which probably explains why people would not accept a self-declared PhD.

by rfgplk 2mo ago

locknitpicker 2mo ago

> Which is ironic, because self-publishing then should automatically qualify you for a PhD. No. What qualifies you as a researcher is being able to output work that is accepted by your peers. Hence the peer review process is critical. You fail to meet this bar if you publish something in blogspot or even arxiv for that matter.

tescreal 2mo ago
A key problem is upper-level academia is rife with the same sorts of human-scale power dynamics. Petty squabbles, ideological (and ideological-flavoured) views can and do hold entire fields from time to time. It is only a particular type of tenacity that breaks up the status quo from time to time. (consider the Marvin Minsky era of AI research. A big personality can stifle an entire field). Peers aren't usually the appropriate measuring stick of merit.
- locknitpicker 2mo ago
  > A key problem is upper-level academia is rife with the same sorts of human-scale power dynamics. You are trying too hard to come up with excuses. The paper review process is double-blind, and nothing prevents you from publishing the same work in multiple journals. If your goal is to do meaningful contributions to science then "power dynamics" are irrelevant. You do need to develop a meaningful network in the field if your goal is to collaborate with other researchers, but that's basically what everyone needs to do in any professional field.
  - tescreal 2mo ago
    Entrenched ideas have momentum. Your lone-warrior attitude is admirable if not lacking in substance. Most fields have had occasional hangups on dead ends, such as the aforementioned Minsky "symbolic > connectivist" debacle. Behaviourism in psychology. String theory. The list goes on.
ndriscoll 2mo ago
Eh, in theoretical fields we now have good formal verification tools so that someone publishing a code repo on their personal website is more meaningful in pretty much every way than a peer reviewed journal article. The article becomes an archaic formality. Like I get that the current social norms around "research" might not be there yet, but if they refuse to adapt, I just see that as a reason to defund "research" and start from scratch.

nathan_compton 2mo ago

I've got a PhD in Physics and I have to say that the quality of most "self published" physics is very low, which probably explains why people would not accept a self-declared PhD.