How do one publishes a scientific paper?

[RoGeorge]

Asking for a friend.

1. How to publish when one is an independent/unknown researcher, not part of academia?
2. How to peer review the idea without loosing the authorship?
3. Is viXra (instead of arXiv) a good first place to publish before the idea gets more traction?
4. Should one file patents first, then publish the scientific paper only afterwards?
5. If the scientific work falls outside the mainstream science, slightly contradicting current interpretations of physics, but the results seems correct either on paper and experimentally, are there any chances to be reviewed/considered by the mainstream science?

Any other advice will be appreciated.

[ebastler]

Asking for a friend.

1. How to publish when one is an independent/unknown researcher, not part of academia?
2. How to peer review the idea without loosing the authorship?
3. Is viXra (instead of arXiv) a good first place to publish before the idea gets more traction?
4. Should one file patents first, then publish the scientific paper only afterwards?
5. If the scientific work falls outside the mainstream science, slightly contradicting current interpretations of physics, but the results seems correct either on paper and experimentally, are there any chances to be reviewed/considered by the mainstream science?

Any other advice will be appreciated.

I'll comment only on those where I think I have something to say, or to add to blueskull's points.

1. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to submit to a major journal as a private individual. Depending on the journal, you may have to pay publication fees, just like academic or corporate authors. The big caveat here is your item 5: You will have problems getting "alternative science" published in a major journal, no matter whether you are on your own or part of an organization.

4. If you think your idea has commercial value, yes, you need to file a patent application before it gets published. I believe blueskull's advice regarding the US is outdated; the US harmonized their system with the rest of the world several years ago. When you have published something, it immediately becomes "state of the art" and can no longer be patented.

5. Not bloody likely... If you have (or can build) a personal relationship to a well-respected established scientist whom you can convince to review and potentially support your idea, that's probably your best bet.

Any other advice? File a patent application (at least a provisional one), it's cheap. Then publish your idea right here. This forum is pretty good at reality checks on off-base technology and, to some extent, science. 


EDIT: I have to correct myself regarding item 4. above; blueskull is right. Even after the 2011 "America Invents Act", the US patent law still provides for a period of up to 12 months after a publication where you can still file a patent application. It even covers you in case a third party follows up on your publication with a publication of their own:

35 USC § 102(b):

A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if–

(a)  the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

(b)  the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

Nevertheless, it's a good idea to file your own patent first. Somebody might come up with a related idea, which adds some further inventive twist to your concept, and file a patent on that one. Then that patent could get in the way when you file something later -- things can get messy. Better establish a proper patent filing priority first.

[jimdeane]

If the scientific work falls outside the mainstream science, slightly contradicting current interpretations of physics, but the results seems correct either on paper and experimentally, are there any chances to be reviewed/considered by the mainstream science?

Here's the thing.  Nearly every physics professor gets emails, letters, meeting requests, sometimes even stalking by people who are absolutely convinced that they have found the new interpretation, the one true path for physics, the way that Einstein (or Feynman or Dirac or...) was wrong, the reason why quantum hooha means free energy. Even I have had such inquiries. They've all been fundamentally flawed.

Nearly all of these are literally wastes of time. For both the submitter and the people they try to convince. There is almost always a fundamental misunderstanding of a concept, or slightly incorrect mathematics, or simply nonsense mathematics that the author has managed to convince themselves is a major discovery, all of which would almost always be cleared up by at least a basic supported foundation in undergraduate physics.

I can't discount every one of these submissions, as I'm sure it's possible that a very very small percentage of such people have something genuine and go on to publish, earn degrees, and become respected academic scientists (though maybe not in that order).

Your best bet is not to approach this as a patent-able, publishable work just yet. Perhaps you could interest a local physics undergrad or graduate student in working with you to help you find holes in your reasoning, setup, and/or mathematical work. If you go into it accepting that you almost certainly will learn more physics and in doing so will learn that you don't have the discovery you thought you did, you may come out of it closer to being a practicing scientist.

Here's some reading material on this topic:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

https://skepticalinquirer.org/1997/01/quantum_quackery/?%2Fsi%2Fshow%2Fquantum_quackery

[RoGeorge]

[/url]http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

The Crackpot Index page of John Baez is funny, I didn't know it, thanks!   

However, a score is as good as its interpretation, so what's the maximum acceptable score?  Since it's not specified, yet the counting starts from -5, does that means any positive score indicates crackpot?   

[SiliconWizard]

1. How to publish when one is an independent/unknown researcher, not part of academia?

Ouch.
In theory you can probably submit any paper to some scientific journal. Be prepared to shell out some cash. And if you're the only author of the paper, it's going to be kind of tough if you're not "part of academia". You'll need determination.

4. Should one file patents first, then publish the scientific paper only afterwards?

Good question. IIRC, the publish first seems to make more sense actually (if this is something you intended to publish anyway).
A published paper is considered enough to hold precedence on a patent, so once you've published it, normally nobody else but you can patent your idea, but YOU can (at least for a predefined period - don't remember exactly, but don't wait too long either.) Check this, this may have changed. At least that was true for Europe a few years ago.

5. If the scientific work falls outside the mainstream science, slightly contradicting current interpretations of physics, but the results seems correct either on paper and experimentally, are there any chances to be reviewed/considered by the mainstream science?

Very little IMO, especially if it comes from a lone author. Unless maybe they can show solid experimental evidence, that can be reasonably reproduced. And if so, well, you may be a genius. Be prepared to fight. But as far as probabilities go, it's unfortunately more probable that you'd be just a nutcase.

[Sal Ammoniac]

5. If the scientific work falls outside the mainstream science, slightly contradicting current interpretations of physics, but the results seems correct either on paper and experimentally, are there any chances to be reviewed/considered by the mainstream science?

I'd say nearly impossible odds of this happening unless your friend already has a track record in the field. The editors of the science journals have seen it all already: perpetual motion machines, free energy, "relativity is wrong because...", etc., etc.

[ebastler]

A published paper is considered enough to hold precedence on a patent, so once you've published it, normally nobody else but you can patent your idea, but YOU can (at least for a predefined period - don't remember exactly, but don't wait too long either.) Check this, this may have changed. At least that was true for Europe a few years ago.

This is true for the U.S., and apparently for Japan and Korea, but not in any other countries. And to my knowledge it has not been true in Europe ever since I was (mildly) interested in patents, i.e. for the past 20 years or so. As soon as you publish something, whether in a scientifc journal or elsewhere, it becomes prior art, and stands in the way of any future patent applications including your own.

The German "Gebrauchsmuster" (utility model) is an exception. That is a "poor man's patent" -- lower fees, a maximum term of 10 years, it can't protect methods (only devices), and the patent office does not examine your application but just registers and publishes it. That one has a 6-month grace period, where you can still file a Gebrauchsmuster even if you have already published your idea. There are probably similar constructs in other countries. But they are not proper patents, as explained above.

[SiliconWizard]

This is true for the U.S., and apparently for Japan and Korea, but not in any other countries. And to my knowledge it has not been true in Europe ever since I was (mildly) interested in patents, i.e. for the past 20 years or so. As soon as you publish something, whether in a scientifc journal or elsewhere, it becomes prior art, and stands in the way of any future patent applications including your own.

Well, this is called the "novelty grace period", and its duration depends on local laws, but it does exist in many countries.
Although, you seem right about the european patent law, which seems not to have a grace period at all.

I'm almost sure a grace period existed in France and I think also in Germany, before the european patent law. But for more recent stuff, I think I confused the grace period with the priority year; see there to understand the difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_(patent)

What I think though is that there still is some form of grace period strictly for french patents in a restricted number of cases; particularly regarding scientific publication. This to encourage public research centers to file for patents, which was pretty rare in France until like the last 15 years or so.

And yes, the grace period is typically 1 year in the USA. I personally think this makes sense (as long, of course, as you think patents do; this may also be debatable!)

[ebastler]

Well, this is called the "novelty grace period", and its duration depends on local laws, but it does exist in many countries.

Yes, I know what it is called. Could you name a few countries besides the U.S., Korea and Japan?

I'm almost sure a grace period existed in France and I think also in Germany, before the european patent law.

Maybe. But the European Patent Convention dates from 1973, so your advice was just slightly outdated. 

What I think though is that there still is some form of grace period strictly for french patents in a restricted number of cases; particularly regarding scientific publication. This to encourage public research centers to file for patents, which was pretty rare in France until like the last 15 years or so.

If that mechanism exists, I would assume it applies to something like utility models, with their restricted scope and level of protection. Going back to the original post, on the plus side, a utility model is easily obtained for machines based on totally off-beat (not to say crackpot) theories! 

[coppercone2]

with all the grant related things they do, they are unlikely to talk to you (its considered threatening to their finances). At least in universities. They might feel like the only dog in town then someone else shows up and it gets ugly fast.

Or they think someone without the 20 million in gear is just clueless, not to mention to justify the cost of PhD... careful

and keep the manager in mind

[LaserSteve]

Lots of universities have someone desperate to publish. The hiring system is not perfect by any means.  Grant funding is way down in the US / EU and money can be hard to come by.  If your sure your right, and you can convince a prof that your right, you might just be able to take advantage of the system.  Publish or Perish is stronger then ever for new professors.  IMHO, not the opinion of my employer.

Steve

[SiliconWizard]

Maybe. But the European Patent Convention dates from 1973, so your advice was just slightly outdated. 

You're confusing european patents with purely national patents. They are still, to this day, two different things, with different rules.
You can still file for a national patent in most european countries. European patents (with the rules that come with them) are not mandatory. Sure a purely national patent can  be seen as not very helpful these days, but it's better than nothing, and significantly cheaper. You can even, AFAIK, file for a patent in a restricted number of european countries, as purely national-wide patents in each, instead of an european patent. More of a pain, but it may again cost less in some cases. Whether it makes sense for you all depends on your market and goals.

What I think though is that there still is some form of grace period strictly for french patents in a restricted number of cases; particularly regarding scientific publication. This to encourage public research centers to file for patents, which was pretty rare in France until like the last 15 years or so.

If that mechanism exists, I would assume it applies to something like utility models, with their restricted scope and level of protection. Going back to the original post, on the plus side, a utility model is easily obtained for machines based on totally off-beat (not to say crackpot) theories! 

I'd have to check that more carefully, but from what I remember, there's not that much restriction for the intended case. Of course, public scientific research is not going to come up with the same kind of patents than your typical industrial patents, but I've seen stuff that was close enough, and that was filed AFTER publication. The main reason they do this is to get an opportunity to make money by licensing, since funding of public research is an increasing problem, and public funding tends to shrink rather than increase. But publishing first is almost a given for public research... so...

Anyway, as to the benefits of patenting itself, I would seriously think twice about it. A patent, if you're a lone inventor with no means, will serve extremely limited purpose. All it will do for you is to prevent someone else to patent the idea (which can be done by merely publishing, even at no cost as long as you make it public!), but enforcing a patent otherwise can be very costly. You can't do that if you don't have the finances. You'll just have a costly piece of paper that won't help you much. And if you think you could at least either license it or sell the patent to a bigger company - keep dreaming. Again if you're alone or a very small company, you will threaten nobody. Noone will care about your patent, unless it's SO interesting that someone else will be desperate to actually hold the patent themselves. In that case, you're acting like most start-ups. You'll be patenting stuff in hopes a big fish will catch you and buy your company, or the patents, or the company for just the patents. Something that probably happens to less than 1% of all start-ups or something. But if you want to patent something to exploit it yourself, really... it's useless unless you have big, big finances.

Just a reality check about patents.

[rodpp]

Yes, I know what it is called. Could you name a few countries besides the U.S., Korea and Japan?

Here is an extensive list or grace period in different countries:

https://www.wipo.int/scp/en/national_laws/grace_period.pdf

[rodpp]

Complementing the above post, if your intent is just to protect in one country, it is enough to observe the grace period and proceed accordingly.

But if you pretend to protect your invention in other areas, it is strongly recommended that you do not use the grace period in any way, because a publication before the first filling date potentially can limit your protection in some countries.

The normal course of action is to request a patent in your local parent office, to grant your first filling date. From that date you have a limit of 12 months (because the Paris Convention treatise) to request an international filling using the PCT treatise (administrated by WIPO). Then you have more 18 months (limit) to fill a national patent request in each country you want to protect your invention.

After the first filling, you are free to publish your invention without affecting the patent filled. But be careful, your patent request will remain secret for a period of 18 months (I am not sure that period is the same in all countries). If someone having access to this content (not through a publication, but in a negotiation, informal presentation, etc) fills one patent request with the content slightly modified, he may have a patent granted too in some contries. Here in Brazil a previous patent request that have not been published can be used as prior art only to analyze the novelty, not the inventive step.