Ask HN: Best way to submit a scientific article for review as a non-academic? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Best way to submit a scientific article for review as a non-academic?

19 points_hmpc16 comments

I am a software developer with a background in aerospace engineering, and am not a professional academic in any capacity.

The lack of an elegant model to predict drag on airfoils in inviscid and incompressible flow has always bothered me ever since my undergrad days, and I finally devised a model whose predictions match almost exactly with experimental data. There is a lot of confusion about what drag is at a fundamental level and most people believe drag is simply not possible in inviscid / incompressible flow (a statement my theory asserts as false). I want to submit my derivation and results for review.

I want to submit somewhere like AIAA or arXiv, but it seems like I might need to be currently associated with a University.

View on HN

(Source: am a university professor)

Do you live near a research university, which employs anyone working in aerospace engineering and/or fluid dynamics? Alternatively, do you ever have the occasion to visit your old university?

I'd try to set up some meetings with professors. Say that you've been working independently, based on questions that were bugging you in your undergrad days, and you'd be extremely grateful if you could discuss your work with them (at their convenience).

Resist the temptation to oversell your work. It sounds like you're claiming to understand drag better than an entire community of experts, who devote their careers to studying it. That is an extraordinarily difficult sell. If you make such a claim, whether in person or in a paper, then your conclusions are likely to be immediately dismissed -- especially at the first sign of any mistake.

Just say you have an alternative theory, and would be grateful to get the chance to discuss it (and have it critiqued) with an established expert. If you make a positive impression, then they will encourage you to publish your results, and will be happy to give you practical advice for doing so.

As a professor, I'd disagree with Nomentatus's suggestion that you should try to "offer to help professors in the area". Accepting help usually creates more effort (for them) than it saves.

It's okay to simply cold-email professors whom you don't know and ask if you could meet them. Be prepared for them to say no, or for them to not reply at all. If they do say yes, don't go in trying to establish a "relationship". The most likely outcome is that they'll say "Oh, that's interesting, you should read X, Y, and Z." Take notes, and -- if you're serious about this -- read X, Y, and Z before you request a second meeting.

In the meantime, make sure you understand why "most people believe drag is simply not possible in inviscid / incompressible flow". If you thoroughly understand the potential objections to your theory, then you might have a shot at convincing someone.

Here is a blog post, which outlines some of the hurdles you could potentially face.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/...

In the long run, if your theory is correct, I believe you have good odds of getting it accepted. Good luck!

Thanks for the great advice!

My first thought was reaching out to former professors by email (can't visit in person), but I wanted to see if there was a more appropriate way, like an online pre-print vetting community or something.

I will definitely tone-down my description of the current state of drag prediction; definitely don't want to offend or be considered a crackpot before anyone even looking at my derivation and results.

The arXiv does serve as an online preprint vetting community, and it would provide you a venue in which to publicly disseminate your work. (You might need either a university-affiliated email or an endorsement, though -- not sure exactly.)

But it's not really a good place to attract attention. Dozens of papers are published there every day, and the more unconventional ones tend to get ignored (unless they're authored by people who are already famous).

Another thing you might do is attend a scientific conference. If possible, see if there's some small, not-terribly-prestigious conference in a related subject, somewhere within driving distance. In my subject, number theory, these are quite common; they're typically held over weekends and are largely designed to give graduate students a venue in which to speak.

Book a hotel, go to all the talks, ask questions. If you strike up conversations with people, you might can ask if you can run your theory by them.

I took a look at registering for arXiv, and since I am not currently affiliated with a University it seems like I wasn't able to proceed. And then there is the question of whether it is beneficial for me, like you said.

I would love to go to conferences, though it might be expensive for the ultimate aim of getting professional second opinions. Will look into it!

offending an academic is often a sign that you are on to something significant :)

You might consider contacting a Formula 1 team; McLaren, Ferrari, Renault or even Red Bull. All these top teams have their own wind tunnels and design and build their own "chassis" from the ground up.

Their aerodynamicists are also heavily invested in CFD and the designers all have aerospace backgrounds.

A yearly budget of $200-250MM USD is typical of these teams.

Here's the McLaren website if this idea seems like an avenue you might wish to persue "https://www.mclaren.com/#"

Potential flow simulations are not very practical these days (maybe for quick back-of-the-envelope), and I highly doubt Formula One would be interested at all. But my theory touches on what is taught to every aerospace engineer, and I think the value of it would be better understanding of the relationship between lift and drag, rather than practical purposes (though it is possible).

Just curious, how did you find this question? I assumed it would have been buried by now.

I am thinking of just releasing it publicly on GitHub and asking random people to vet it...

Now I see your point.

Not buried yet, it was still front page. Only after I replied, did I notice you posted 2 days ago... peeps getting ready to break loose for the Thanksgiving Break Slowdown? IDK.

Publish your work before starting any collaboration. You absolutely do not need to be affiliated with a University in order to submit anywhere. Many IEEE conferences encourage submissions from first-time authors so if there is one that is a good match for your paper you should submit there. It might also be useful to contact someone on the paper committee to find out if they have special guidance for first time authors. Good luck!

Some journals explicitly expect academic association but it is rare

a lot of journals implicitly expect academic association

often though, including in technical engineering from my experience, it is not for people from industry to submit articles.

Basically..start by reading other articles in a journal you are interested in submitting to and getting a feel for how they work. Figure out what sections you will need to have, what prior work you can reference. Have you ever written something similar? Are you interested in publishing the model as a theoretical construction? If so, why does one not already exist? how confident are you in your math? Are you interested in publishing an implementation of the model?

It is worth noting that AIAA and arXiv are TOTALLY different beasts. arXiv is a pre-print repository, that is NOT a peer reviewed journal. On the other hand, AIAA publishes multiple journals with different specific areas. For AIAA, how

What is the value/relevance of the paepr? Not just...novelty...journals get hundreds of 'novel' submissions. What is the value of a model of drag in incompressible flow? can you cite others making that argument?

As someone who regularly reviews (although less now because I won't review paywalled articles anymore) a fair number of journal articles, the reason most get rejected is lack of adherence to field norms and poor writing. Norms aren't god, but they exist for a reason and speak to/provide evidence of credibility in what you are saying. Poor writing...well academic writing is HARD. everything you are doing contributes to building an argument and providing evidence for your key point. It has to be situated, claims have to be supported, references made, etc. There are many problems with academic publishing...and these issues can be applied in exclusionary ways, but they are generally useful. Often, people think that you need some crzy high minded writing for journal articles...you don't. What you are seeing is field norms operationalized. In a way it is a highly practical cargo cult. Each field has a ton of knowledge and needs a way to short hand all of it to their disciplinary peers.

Happy to answer more specific questions or similar off list if you want to get into specifics.

Thanks for the long post!

I want at the very least to just get my derivation and results reviewed. I hope to avoid minutia of academic formatting, diction, etc. before getting any reviews...

Honestly, it's a really simple idea with significant consequences (if correct, of course). I have written a full draft and it is no more than 3 pages. Basically all aerospace engineering undergrads get taught early on that airfoil drag is just zero in 2D incompressible and inviscid flows, unless you want to use complicated, empirical viscosity imitation or wake momentum thickness methods (e.g. XFOIL). So my theory if correct would be quite impactful because it is so relevant to what all aerospace undergrads are taught.

My theory asserts that there is an omission of physics that is fundamental to understanding airfoil lift and drag, and how they are physically coupled. In my theory, drag is calculated as naturally as lift is, unlike what is currently taught. Although I strongly believe the physics and derivation are correct, I would not be confident enough to submit it for review if the results didn't match so well with airfoil experimental data (NACA TR-824).

I basically want my theory disproven or validated by qualified people. After that, I don't mind conforming to whatever minutia towards publication.

> Basically all aerospace engineering undergrads get taught early on that airfoil drag is just zero in 2D incompressible and inviscid flows, [...]

Don't you need some adicional hypothesis, like that all the path integrals of the wind field are zero? Most of the easy part of the analysis of the lift in a wing assumes that air is inviscid (except for the initial generation of the vortex around the wing). [And if the speed is much smaller than the speed of sound, you can approximate that the fluid is incompressible.]

For example see https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/cyl.html

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Thin Airfoil Theory and Vortex Panel Methods all predict zero drag. XFOIL predicts drag by tacking on a wake momentum thickness method.

I agree sometimes someone who is not in the university might still want to post a scientific article; some people are learn and do by yourself instead.

If you cannot post on arXiv then you can post on viXra.

Sounds like an excellent target for an X prize. Say one that would reveal one set of data for submissions to match, and not reveal another similar set. The "theory/formulation/algorithm" with the best match for the second set, wins.

Obviously any kind of University contact would be valuable for your kind of quest; do you have any skills you can offer to help professors in the area? So that you could establish yourself a bit before trying to sell your idea? That requires a fair investment in time, I know, but I think that's what you're up against since so does evaluating theoretical ideas "just on spec."

I don't mean to contradict the previous comment, re familiarizing yourself with a journal's style, but that's a bit like teaching yourself Spanish without ever having anyone check your work. So there, too, an insider who can act as a first reader is invaluable.

I wish you luck, the professionalization of the academy is part of why innovation is now slowing IMHO.

It's actually a pretty simple idea that could be significant because it touches on what every aerospace engineer is taught about airfoils in incompressible and inviscid flow, and I think it would contribute to fundamental understanding of lift and drag. My full draft with the abstract, derivation, results (comparison with experimental wind tunnel airfoil data), and discussion is less than 3 pages long.

I agree with your Spanish analogy. I don't want to do a lot of work before peer review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com