Greetings, /sci/. I am confident to have made a most relevant

>>8047864
you made an important discovery by yourself, isolated, with no supervision?

talk to your professors. you don't know professors in the field? then that's a huge red flag, 100% chance you didn't discover shit

>>8047870
>talk to your professors. you don't know professors in the field? then that's a huge red flag, 100% chance you didn't discover shit

ignore this elitist anon

publish your work however you can, usually conferences are easier than journals

you do NOT need an academic institution behind you, plenty of research is done by private sector companies and individuals working for them

>>8047907
>elitist
dude. if he has no education on the subject, and doesn't have a lab or know people who do, how the fuck would he make a breakthrough in chem / physics?

you're really giving him too much credit, waaaay too much.

>>8047914
>if he has no education on the subject

point me to where OP told you this, anon

actually, don't; instead, just fuck off with your ivory tower academic bullshittery

File: 1457088862446.jpg (63KB, 475x356px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 475x356px

>>8047907
>elitist

KEK

cant wait to hear about your important discovery in the news, OP

>>8047923
OP literally knows nobody who has published a paper. That's why they're asking here.

>>8047923

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>8047914
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little biologist? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the MIT, and I’ve been involved in numerous experiments on DARPA, and I have over 300 confirmed lab reports. I am trained in eletromagnetic microscopy and I’m the top scientist in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another /sci/autist. I will refute you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with logical fallacies like that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret lab team across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that refutes out the pathetic little thing you call your argument. You’re fucking proven wrong, kid. I can perform experiments anywhere, anytime, and I can disprove you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare lab gloves. Not only am I extensively trained in quantitative chemistry, but I have access to the entire laboratory equipment of the United States Union of Universities and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable claims off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will display the scientific method all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>8047864
Just look at where you want to publish it. They usually have guidelines for submitting work.

>>8047929
Did it ever occur to you, that this whole thread might be bait?

>>8047980

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

File: pretending.jpg (29KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 349x642px

>>8048000

>>8047864

I just which we had one of those magical web page thingies which you could use to find some relevant information.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474301/
http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWtoc.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+write+scientific+article&oq=how+to+write+scientific&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.7391j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

>>8047980
>They usually have guidelines for submitting work.
If you really think *guidelines* tell you how to write a scientific article fit for Science or Nature I can only conclude you have no actual knowledge of any of this. None.

>>8047980
>Did it ever occur to you, that this whole thread might be bait?
Only that your posting might be.