Thesis advisers advise, and they advise because new students need a lot of help in getting a thesis ready. I suppose it is a rare genius who can do it on her own, but the odds are that the thesis is significantly flawed in many ways.
Ideas are a different story. Some advisers, who have grants that need students, would rather assign ideas, but you can find some who will accept an idea, so long as it is their area. When I went to my first grad school I had no idea of a specific topic, just an area to work on. When my adviser died and I moved to a second school I had a topic which I got to work on - but I was already well along.
I’d suspect that an undergrad from a really good school would have a much better shot.
I’m in industry, but I have a PhD, published lots of papers, and been a program chair, special issue editor, and am now associate editor-in-chief of a journal.
The editor of a journal (or a special issue) will look at every paper and assign it to reviewers, assuming it is actually in a relevant area for that journal. All editors who I’ve known would, upon seeing an interesting paper, say it is worth a look. I have gotten papers to review where the editor apologized for sending it, because he thought it was incompetent. It was. Some conferences even remove the author’s name and any self-references to avoid a halo effect. That does happen, but I don’t know of anyone who would shoot down a truly good paper because it came from outside the inner circle, which is more than academics in my area.
But the best suggestion from above is for this author to find someone listed in his references (and if he has none he has proved he doesn’t know what he is doing) and send an email asking if the person would look over the paper and give his honest opinion. Chances are there is either a fatal flaw or it has been thought of already. If three experts agree, it is time to give up. If an expert actually likes the paper, he will probably recommend a journal.
If by “pro forma” you mean incredibly competitive and virtually impossible for most, then yes.
I am not sure what any of this has to do with the original question, though. Journals will, generally speaking, not reject articles just because the author is not currently employed in academia. However, the chances that anyone without doctoral level academic training could write a paper good enough to meet most journals’ standards are low. Currently unemployed (or not academically employed) Ph.D.s can and do get stuff published.
In your field, sure. But in mine over half of PhDs (my guess) go into industry. Not all continue publishing, but the conferences I’m involved in have a significant number of non-academic people in major roles, and getting best paper awards. But we industrial people find it easier to do real experiments with real data than academics do.
All the hoops you jump through are to make sure you know enough to do a dissertation, make sure you know how to find previous work (harder when I did it than now) and know how to approach and structure a major research project. These days, based on my daughter’s experience, you also learn about how to apply for grants.
Reading this back, maybe this part of the OP was unclear and a few people have misinterpreted this.
I wasn’t implying that some guy off the street could walk in, hand in a paper and be handed back a shiny, new PhD. What I meant was, his paper could be seen as proposed area of study for a PhD.
Of course, studying for a PhD might be a rather long-winded way of Joe Schlub publishing his theory, but perhaps it is necessary in many fields?
I once asked a journal publisher about this, and they replied that they considered the material, not the source. It didn’t stop me from being turned down, but it wasn’t because of a lack of proper credentials.
For the record, I’ve had a book published in a field ouside my own by a respectab;le academic publisher, who accepted it even though I had no credentials in thagt area (Classics). I’ve also published a few articles in classics journals, and other journals outside my area of expertise and my degree. I CAN be done.
In fact, there are organizations for people who work and publish academic works without being asociated with institutions. The people who do this are Independent Scholars, and I’m a member of one such organization.
I’ve heard about high school students getting published in mathematics journals on occasion. I think the student generally has some kind of mentor to work with, though.
Here’s an example: “Although he does not like to brag about his accomplishments, Rickards’ parents say they are “very proud” of their son, who had a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Mathematical Monthly when he was in Grade 10.”
As for the last question, no.
As for the first, the topic is almost immaterial. There is a lot more to getting a PhD than doing a dissertation. Someone with a PhD is expected to have a deep and broad knowledge of the field, so most departments (maybe all) have some sort of quals where you have to prove this knowledge. After all, the department doesn’t want to grant a PhD to someone who then goes to a university where it is discovered he doesn’t know the basics.
Someone coming up with a topic, even a good one, based on reading some books and papers is not likely to pass quals. Generally you get some time to take classes to make up for holes in your knowledge, but it is not likely to be enough unless you have an undergraduate degree in the area or a related one.
The situation is different in field biology. Often a dedicated amateur, with no formal qualifications, can make significant contributions.
One of the most famous examples of this was the lateTed Parker, sometimes considered the best field ornithologist who ever lived. Parker barely got his bachelor’s degree, mainly because he spent so much time birding. He never obtained a Ph.D., but became a research associate at Louisiana State University. He supported himself initially as a commercial birding guide, and later worked for Conservation International.
Yet Parker published dozens of peer-reviewed articles in the technical literature. He was very highly regarded in the field, even though he didn’t have formal qualifications. He was posthumously awarded a honorary Ph.D. after his death in a plane crash.
In an earlier era, Eugene Eisenmann, Panama’s most famous ornithologist, published many important papers even though his only academic qualification was as a lawyer.
The timeline: Eibstein got a teaching degree in 1900. Published his first paper in 1901. Couldn’t find a teaching job. Went to work in the patent office, continuing his work towards a doctoral degree in the meantime. He finished his PhD in 1905, publishing his research at the same time.
Nearly finished PhD students submitting work their advisors have approved are hardly academic nobodies.
Good heavens!
Teaching degree (equivalent to a BA/BS? Bachelor’s+?) to PhD in 5 years!?
When I started college (1980’s) the standard for the soft sciences was 4+ to the Master’s and 5-8 more for the PhD, and the hard sciences are well-known to be a lot tougher!
A genius in many ways!
–G!
Never said too much to speak of
He was off on another plane
The words that he said were a mystery
Nobody’s sure he was sane
But he knew!
He knew more than me or you
No one could see his view
Oh, where was he going to?
. --Steve Walsh (Kansas)
. Portrait (He Knew)
. Point of Know Return
Another example. My old boss had a PhD in Math, worked in engineering and was also a published amateur mycologist. He was the go-to person in central New Jersey when someone ate a poison mushroom, which happened fairly frequently since some poisonous mushrooms there look just like edible mushrooms in other countries - so immigrants got fooled.
He was also a respected poet.
Some people just make you feel inadequate.
When I got mine in CS I took 7 years, including a Masters, and I switched schools when my adviser died, and so had the pleasure of taking two sets of quals and orals. I was considered pokey. Of course I actually had a job to go to when I was done which helped.
I’m just now starting my PhD in Computer Science in Australia, and I’d be curious to know how my experience compares with the typical experience elsewhere.
As I was completing my BCompSc, I went in search of potential supervisors for an honours year. I found a supervisor interested in machine learning who was well-published, and he proposed a project for my honours thesis; he also suggested 4th/5th-year subjects to take as part of my workload. (50% of the honours year is coursework.)
During my honours year I had two papers published on my research. In the final months of my honours year, my supervisor suggested some ideas for bioinformatics-based higher degree research and brought in an Environmental Sciences colleague as a potential PhD co-supervisor (assuming I achieved First Class or Second Class Division I Honours). They advised me on a general PhD proposal while I simultaneously completing my honours thesis.
Once I achieved First Class Honours, I was admitted into the PhD programme. My supervisors then suggested a specific project for the PhD. At the end of the first six months I need to submit a literature review, a research outline and a progress report (as well as various other odds and ends) and give a presentation for my “confirmation of candidature.”
In very short order, I’ve gone from a regular 3-year undergraduate to a PhD candidate, skipping a Masters entirely. In-between I did my Honours, but it feels quite like a whirlwind (in a good way). In 2.5 years, I’ll have my PhD.
I don’t know about every field, but in Computer Science, a Masters is not needed. In some PhD programs it’s a consolation prize for people who wash out midway thru.
I spent a year getting a Masters (not in CS, that wasn’t available where I was). Waste of time. It’s just a line on my vita and the PhD program accepted me before I finished and didn’t care whether I did or not.
I could have gotten an MS in CS while getting my PhD. Would have cost $50 to apply for it. Decided I needed the money more.
For me: 3 years BS, 1 (wasted) year MS, 4 years PhD. Some can do 4, many do 5 or 6 in CS.
We had a student once who already had a PhD in another field. 2 years to get a PhD in CS. Fairly rare.
(I’m not knocking getting a Masters. If that is your end goal, it’s a good thing to do. But if you’re getting a PhD, a lot of people won’t care.)
