Page 1 of 1

Science Publishers

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 11:51 am
by kem
Good Morning, Afternoon, or Evening

I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to point in the direction of a good Science Publisher, preferably one whom would be interested in publishing a new explanation of phenomena, and hence would not be enslaved by all the current orthodoxies when making a decision as to whether or not to proceed with publishing.

Many thanks

Antony

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 11:56 am
by Sisyphus
That could depend on the specific phenomena.

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 12:24 pm
by Lincoln
It will depend on the phenomenon. You didn't specify much, so no advice can be given. If you're looking for a book publisher or a journal publisher. If you have a fringe theory and a book manuscript, you're almost certainly on your own. Self publishing is pretty cheap nowadays.

With more details, it may be possible to give some advice. The most general advice is to go to the library/book store and find other similar books. Those are the publishers who print that type of book.

If you're talking a journal, well then there are lots of fringe journals with not very critical evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 12:54 pm
by kem
Thanks for the replies...

The books purpose is to extend our current understanding of gravity, and in doing so will explain how this new understanding solves (amongst other things) the dilemmas that are/were Dark Matter, and The Horizon Problem, as well as showing that there is no singularity in a Black Hole, and hence the laws of physics do not need to fall down.

Fringe theory!?

Errrmmm, well I would have to consider all other theories fringe if I were to consider mine so, as I do not need to introduce any mythical phenomena like strings, and parallel universes.

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 1:11 pm
by Lincoln
Strings do not constitute fringe ideas. They may be wrong, but they are not fringe. Parallel universes are much closer to fringe, but have sufficient representation in good journals by proven theorists to not be lunatic fringe. Theorists can upon occasion indulge their speculative nature without diving over the abyss into the lunatic fringe.

I presume you have a theory...maybe even a manuscript. You could post some of the salient points in Alternative Theories and see what kind of feedback you get.

Getting a book published is hard. I have all the right credentials, over 200 journal articles and a couple of books to my credit and even for me it turns out to be not so easy to get the attention of publishers. If you don't have something like that...or a truly-entertaining writing style....it will be even harder for you.

If you think your idea has merit (as you must obviously do,) I recommend a journal submission over a book. It's a lot shorter to write and you get feeback much sooner. Or you could self-publish. That is a lot easier, although it'll cost you a couple of thousand dollars. Maybe as little as $1000.

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 2:13 pm
by kem
So it seems a ‘fringe theory’ by your definition is an idea that has not been accepted by a certain number/majority of scientists. I say this as there is no proof of strings (nor does string theory make any predictions like a ‘normal theory’) and yet you consider it not to be fringe, and even parallel universes, as you have stated, has sufficient representation not to be consider lunatic fringe.

Hence in this context my idea is fringe because I have not explained it to anyone (not that I haven’t been truly thorough within myself), however when compared to the above, it is the sanest theory going, and does not need to dabble in the lunacy of what I consider fringe.


And so, while I greatly appreciate your advice, the fact that I have a theory that explains what your ‘proven theorists’ are unable to, and the fact that I have done without needing to introduce unproven and mythical phenomena, means that this overrides my needing a truly-entertaining style - for I deal with substance - and as far as I am concerned, I have the greatest and sanest of substance.

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 2:50 pm
by Lincoln
Grand.

I wasn't commenting on your theory. Don't get touchy. You'll note that you've given essentially zero information on the theory.

I'm answering a publishing question. I have some minor knowledge of that culture, having published two books. If you can get better information by someone with more experience in that culture, by all means do so.

Like it or not, a publisher will accept a science theory more easily if the originator has some scientific "street cred." You don't have to like that....I don't care...but it's true. Publishing is a business that crushes dreams. It took me a year and a half to find my first publisher. The second one (since I wanted to swap publishers) took about half a year...even with a reasonably-performing book to my credit. I still haven't been able to interest an agent. Don't be surprised if it takes you a similar or larger amount of time and you have similar or larger obstacles. It's not personal...the publishers get far more manuscripts than they can publish and they are in the business of selling books.

A book on a theory that has no publications to its credit and no "buzz" in magazines like Discovery, the New York Times science page, Scientific American, etc....is going to be a very hard sell.

Welcome to publishing. Good luck...

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 3:39 pm
by Nick
kem, we would much prefer it if you come in and explain your theory on the alt theories board rather than get annoyed at our members for suggesting that yet another fringe theory might not explain gravity. Scientists are by their nature very cautious, and are not going to suddenly believe that your pet theory is right unless you share and explain it to them.

PostPosted: April 21st, 2008, 4:24 pm
by Lincoln
Boris...

Don't put words in my mouth. I was not commenting at all on the theory which, after all, has not been described. While I expect I would not support the theory, I can have no supportable opinion in the absence of knowledge.

However, unless the theory is one that is known by the public, a publisher is not going to publish it. Publisher's want to sell books and they won't be able to sell a book on a topic that nobody has heard of.

All of my comments were intended to be publishing-oriented, not theory-value oriented.

PostPosted: April 23rd, 2008, 4:29 pm
by kem
Pukka.

Indeed, this is a query regarding publishing.


I am not in the habit of giving years of hard work away for nothing, I know that this is the norm in your profession, however I have no formal qualifications (yep that’s it, he definitely doesn’t know anything) and hence I am not in the position of been guaranteed a vacancy, if you get my drift.

And so you have made my position clear, the system scientific publishers have in place means that even if I am able to offer solutions to problems that have been unsolved for 70 odd years, I would have more chance of been published by a science-fiction publisher than by the clowns that are supposedly feeding us with facts!

Or maybe that’s just the tripe Lincoln wishes to feed me.

PostPosted: April 23rd, 2008, 4:39 pm
by Lincoln
Angry, aren't we?

You asked about books. I told you. You don't like what I have to advise? Then get a book on "How to get a book contract" and start submitting book proposals. Get back to me in a few years. Getting a book published is hard. Believe me or don't....I simply don't care. Try it. It's not like I have any authority to ban you or something like that.

If your theory is as good as you think it is, submit a paper to Physical Review Letters. The way to do that can be found here. That's how all models are overturned. There are other journals that might work, like Physics Letters or Zeitschrift fur Physik.

Or if you're super impressed with your theory, there's always self publishingor possibly Geraldo....

Tripe, schmipe. Try it. See if I'm right. If you figure out a way to get a book contract easily, I'd like to know myself.

Just what were you expecting? The secret-spy-password to get into the inner cabal of scientific publishing?

Bizarro.....

PostPosted: April 23rd, 2008, 5:18 pm
by DrCloud
I think the answer here lies in the world of print-on-demand publishing (which is sort of like self-publishing and sort of not). Try AuthorHouse.com or iUniverse.com for info. As long as you're not publishing something libelous, they're pretty much open to everything. Of course, those "publishers" make their money from cashing checks from authors rather than from selling books, but they allow considerable latitude with respect to marketing and so on.

Best of all, there's no initial press run that kills a lot of trees needlessly, and the books (there are generally both hardcover and trade-edition softercover options) look and feel like "real" books. (Whether they read like a real book is a different matter, of course.) HPH

PostPosted: April 23rd, 2008, 5:37 pm
by kem
Yeah, super dooper impressed!

In reality I have never thought of myself too highly, however it is clear that many scientists do think of themselves as super, and it is those people whom have to come to terms with the fact that if what I say is true, I must surely then be super dooper.

Anyway thanks for all the pointers.

PostPosted: May 12th, 2008, 5:41 pm
by goingtothedogs
kem wrote:Pukka.

Indeed, this is a query regarding publishing.


I am not in the habit of giving years of hard work away for nothing, I know that this is the norm in your profession, however I have no formal qualifications (yep that’s it, he definitely doesn’t know anything) and hence I am not in the position of been guaranteed a vacancy, if you get my drift.

And so you have made my position clear, the system scientific publishers have in place means that even if I am able to offer solutions to problems that have been unsolved for 70 odd years, I would have more chance of been published by a science-fiction publisher than by the clowns that are supposedly feeding us with facts!

Or maybe that’s just the tripe Lincoln wishes to feed me.


Kem. You are being rude. you came onto the forum with a question but no information. Then you get irritable that someone with qualifications, knowledge and relevant experience tells you something you do not want to hear.

Understand this. You say that you have a new theory, whatever it be. If you want it accepted by the scientific community, that means telling people what it is and then sitting back while they read it, question it and ask you for proof. That's how it works.

Who exactly are your "clowns feeding us facts"?

And as for giving away your precious work. Are you aware that publication of an idea, by whatever means, makes it yours? If you have a truly original idea of merit, then even talking about it on a forum such as this will mak it as your own. That is the nature of copyright. It does not guarantee that it will be taken as immediately true or correct, but it will be yours.

And a bit less arrogance might make your ideas easier to discuss when you want to convince some of the clowns. I'm assuming that you want to convince them of course. Judging by your attitude you may have already decided that you are correct.

Re: Science Publishers

PostPosted: April 24th, 2012, 12:54 am
by anky2930
In which topic or subject you concern .I mean whole science can't in a single book