All replies (2)

I Think Self publication can be a good option for you.
read the following article for further motivation :)
Should You Self-Publish Your Research?
In 1901, Beatrix Potter’s “The Tales of Peter Rabbit” was rejected by several publishers, so she self-published the book. Less than a year later, publisher Frederick Warne & Co., one of the original group of publishers who rejected her manuscript, became Beatrix Potter’s publisher. The relationship lasted for 40 years and led to the publication of over 23 books. Over a century later, over two million books, which have been authored by Beatrix Potter, are sold each year!
1 Recommendation
Potter wasn't attempting to publish "research".
Journal of Irreproducible Results?

Similar questions and discussions

Will application of AI computation kill fundamental science research?
Question
42 answers
  • Emmanouil MarkoulakisEmmanouil Markoulakis
Subtitle: Will all the fundamental researchers be fired from their jobs in the future and fundamental research become obsolete?
This is a philosophical but also practical question with immediate implications to our not so far future.
The danger is that AI applications in science like AlphaFold (Nobel prize in Chemistry 2024):
are not really predictions made by science by fully and fundamentally understanding nature's physics mechanics and chemistry but just brute force smart computational pattern recognition correlating known outcomes of similar input data and guessing the most likely new outcome. This is not new fundamental science and physics research but just an application of AI computation.
The philosophical question here is, will future scientists and human civilization using AI, continue to be motivated to do fundamental science research?
Is there really any real human urge to fundamentally understand a physical phenomenon or system in order to predict its outcome results for a specific input, if the outcome results can be easily and much faster and effortlessly being empirically and statistically guessed by an AI without the need of fundamental understanding?
This is a blind and mutilated future science and future danger of slowing down real new fundamental science breakthroughs and milestones. Therefore, essentially slowing down human civilization progress and evolution and demoting science to the role of a "magic oracle".
In my opinion, the use of AI in fundamental research like fundamental new physics research must be regulated or excluded. Already many science Journals have strict rules about the use of "Generative AI" inside the submitted papers and also completely not allowing it.
What are your opinions and thoughts?

Related Publications

Article
This article recounts the history of electronic journals, and the evolution of library processes to manage them. The article reviews recent controversies regarding the future of electronic publishing, and describes one important and innovative electronic publisher, the Public Library of Science.
Article
This article is an overview of the various aspects of e-publishing, that is its characteristics, the types of e-publications, the economics of e-publishing, the perspectives and roles of the various stakeholders in e-publishing, and advantages and disadvantages. In an era of changing roles of the author, publisher and library and information profes...
Article
E_ publishing is considered one of the essential results of information technology because it helps improve scientific research. That is what makes me study electronic publishing, according to university teachers, especially those in the media field, because they are still on their way to learning. At the same time, they also need more knowledge as...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.